Abstract

This article shows, through both theoretical analysis and empirical evidence, that there is an absence of consensus among philosophers of science, scientists, and science communicators regarding the correctness of realist versus anti-realist interpretations of scientific theories. It is argued that integrating this finding within the current prevalent norm of consensus reporting necessitates a reconsideration of how results from the natural sciences are reported. As such, the article advances a model for science reporting that more accurately represents the complexity of scientific expert opinions, thereby aligning more closely with the actual epistemic conditions within the scientific community.