  Much has been discussed in the philosophy of science about how we should
understand the scientific enterprise. On the one hand, scientific realists
believe that empirically adequate theories can be supplemented by
interpretations that can mirror reality-as-it-is; on the other hand,
anti-realists argue that this is not the case, as long as scientific theories
make sufficiently accurate experimental predictions the addition of narratives
is irrelevant for the scientific enterprise, and regarding narratives, it is
preferable to remain agnostic. In this paper, we argue that realism was never
really at stake in this debate.
