Wikipedia defines anti-realism as “a philosophy of realism in philosophy and science”. However, what is actually meant by this philosophical term is something completely different from what people typically understand it to mean. For instance, when one says that philosophy or science are empty theories, they are correct in a way, because without some underlying assumptions, philosophy and science could not exist. However, when one claims that philosophy or science are nothing but empty words used to describe how the universe is, they are wrong on many counts. This is important to see because the line can sometimes get quite blurred between these two endeavors.
Philosophical anti-realism stems from a number of different philosophical positions. Among these are: nominalism, anti-realism, realism, nominalism, reductionism, meta-realism, and anti-positivism. However, it should be noted that just because a philosopher suggests that philosophy or science are empty terms, this does not make them true. Indeed, just because someone suggests that philosophy or science are nothing but empty words, this does not make them true. In other words, just because someone says something like, “Philosophy is nothing but a waste of time” doesn’t make the statement true.
Wikipedia further notes, “The term anti-realism might be used to refer to anti-empirical, or meta-physiological views of reality, without specifying which view is meant.” Therefore, the fact that the term “anti-realism” is used as a synonymous with any one of the above-mentioned philosophical positions actually demonstrates its problematic nature. As such, it is best to leave the term as is and use it to explain classical philosophical arguments, rather than trying to redefine them.