Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Combining Pluralism and Scientific realism (in quantum physics): Putnam’s Pragmatic Realism

Mathieu Guillermin

Published Jan 1, 2014• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In this presentation, I explore the possibility of combining pluralism and scientific realism in the framework of Putnam’s pragmatic realism (Putnam, 1999; Bernstein, 2005). I illustrate my claim through the analysis of a case of Duhem-Quine underdetermination originating in the violation of Bell’s Inequalities and involving several contemporary conceptions of quantum mechanics: the instrumentalist approach called ‘no interpretation view’ (Fuchs and Peres, 2000), Bohmian Mechanics (Dürr and Teufel, 2009), the veiled reality conception (d'Espagnat, 2011) and the approach with extended probabilities (Gell-Mann and Hartle, 2012). First, I briefly expose how the violation of Bell’s Inequalities can be understood as imposing a necessary trade-off between epistemic values usually satisfied in the context of classical physics. This allows conceiving the proponents of the studied approaches as standing in “faultless” or “rational” disagreement (Gattei, 2008; Pritchard, 2009). However, while the idea of faultless disagreement becomes more and more accepted, pluralism is rarely advocated for beyond the epistemological (cognitive) human sphere. Indeed, while it is often acknowledged that several competing theories can all be reasonably endorsed (Kelly, 2005), admitting that more than one is really is usually considered as opening the door to anti-realism (about entities described by scientific theories and about truth) or to relativism. I then mobilize Putnam’s pragmatic realism to challenge this last claim, in discussing the possibility of admitting a plurality of true theories while preserving scientific realism and realism about truth. The core of Putnam’s conception is to reject sense data (or inner theater) epistemology in considering that genuine aspects of reality (and not mere mental phenomena) are met in our ordinary perception (Putnam, 1999, 2013). Putnam arrived at this conclusion after a long intellectual path initiated with the rejection of metaphysical realism and its associated understanding of truth as a unique (and transcontextual) substantive property (of correspondence to the metaphysical reality). Putnam first opposed to this type of view his internal realism in which truth becomes intimately connected to standards of rational acceptability, opening the road for conceptual pluralism (Putnam, 1981). However, this first attempt proved unsatisfying, providing no sufficient ground for realism and for discrimination between truth and verification. Putnam diagnosis is then radical: in the framework of sense data epistemology, one cannot escape the forced choice between metaphysical realism and verificationism – this is the antinomy of realism (Putnam, 1999). With pragmatic realism and the rejection of the inner theater picture, Putnam proposes an interesting alternative. It becomes possible to admit the disquotational conception of truth from Tarski while 1) escaping its deflationist interpretation without returning to metaphysical realism and 2) maintaining conceptual pluralism. According to pragmatic realism, the way a knowledge claim can be responsible to reality – can be true – is neither unique nor fixed in advance. As it will be illustrated with the discussion of the disagreement about quantum mechanics, this pragmatic realism framework permits the combined admission of conceptual pluralism and scientific realism. • Bernstein, R. J. (2005). In Y. Ben-Menahem (Ed.), Hilary Putnam (pp. 251-265): Cambridge University Press. • D'Espagnat, B. (2011). Foundations of Physics, 41(11), 1703-1716. • Dürr, D. and Teufel, S. (2009). Bohmian Mechanics: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. • Fuchs, C. A. and Peres, A. (2000). Physics Today, 53(3), 70-71. • Gattei, S. (2008). Thomas Kuhn's "Linguistic Turn" and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism: Incommensurability, Rationality and the Search for Truth: Ashgate. • Gell-Mann, M. and Hartle, J. B. (2012). Physical Review A, 85(6), 062120. • Kelly, T. (2005). In T. Szabó Gendler and J. Hawthorne

Related papers

The Magical Realism of Quantum Physics: A Postcolonial Reading

Maxim V. Kharkevich

Quantum physics can be understood as an epistemological rupture that transforms the foundations of modern scientific rationality. In contrast to the Newtonian mechanistic worldview that underpinned universalist notions of progress, objectivity, and control, quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty, contextuality, non-locality, and the constitutive role of observation into scientific knowledge. These features destabilize the image of reality as a unified, hierarchically structured, and fully transparent domain, thereby challenging the epistemic premises of Western universalism. At the cultural level, this rupture finds expression in forms of scientific magical realism, where the quantum world appears as strange, paradoxical, elusive and fundamentally ungraspable. Such representations allow the quantum revolution to be interpreted not only as a theoretical breakthrough in physics but as an internal epistemological transformation of modern rationality itself. The issue is not the abandonment of rationality, but the reconfiguration of its foundations: the acknowledgment of uncertainty, contextuality, and the participatory role of the observer as structural features of knowledge. This shift is comparable to the epistemological tensions identified by postcolonial theory in situations where hegemonic discourses encounter forms of knowledge that cannot be reduced to their universalist logic. In this sense, quantum physics emerges as a form of internal epistemological alterity within Western science: while remaining part of its canon, it simultaneously rearticulates its ontological assumptions and limits its claim to constitute the sole normative regime of rationality. Extending quantum logic into social theory enables a shift from mechanistic social ontology toward a quantum social ontology, in which relationality, co-constitution, and process take precedence over fixed entities and linear causality. This transformation unfolds as a form of passive revolution, in the Gramscian sense: a profound ontological reorientation achieved not through the destruction of disciplinary institutions, but through their gradual conceptual reconfiguration. The epistemological outcome of this shift is the pluralization of knowledge and the emergence of a pluriversal onto-epistemological horizon, where scientific rationality becomes compatible with multiple cosmologies and situated ways of knowing. In this sense, the quantum turn opens a pathway toward the decolonization of knowledge and the rethinking of global order beyond universalist epistemic hierarchies.

Cuadernos Iberoamericanos•Apr 9, 2026•0 citations

Realism and metaphysics in quantum mechanics

Raoni Wohnrath Arroyo, Jonas R. Becker Arenhart

According to scientific realism, science gives us an approximately true description of what the world is like. But what does it mean? In this chapter, we focus on the ontological and metaphysical aspects of this discussion. That is, we are concerned with the following questions: what there is, according to our best scientific theories? And how are these things that theories say exist? We start from the assumption that a genuine scientific realism must deal with these issues. Taking non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study, we discuss some of the challenges currently faced by a genuinely realistic stance. We argue, first, that in the ontological aspect, realists are in the same boat as science, that is, without sufficient epistemic justification to adopt the belief in the entities postulated by a single quantum theory, given that experience (currently) is not able to decide between rival theories; in the metaphysical aspect, realists also encounter problems with theory choice, given the possibility of associating more than one metaphysical theory with the description of the entities postulated by each quantum theory. The same goes for structuralist alternatives, since, even if we accept that scientific theories are committed to the existence of structures, but not objects, we still do not know what structures are, metaphysically. Finally, we move forward in the discussion with the meta-Popperian method, which serves to reduce the metaphysical alternatives associated with the ontological postulates of scientific theories. We may not know what the correct alternative is, but we have been able to progressively check which metaphysical alternatives are incompatible with each scientific theory.

arXiv:2012.03071•Dec 5, 2020•0 citations

Putnam on realism, reference and truth: The problem with quantum mechanics

Christopher Norris

In this essay, I offer a critical evaluation of Hilary Putnam's writings on epistemology and philosophy of science, in particular his engagement with interpretative problems in quantum mechanics. I trace the development of his thinking from the late 1960s when he adopted a strong causal-realist position on issues of meaning, reference, and truth, via the "internal realist" approach of his middle-period writings, to the various forms of pragmatist, naturalized, or "commonsense" epistemology proposed in his latest books. My contention is that Putnam's retreat from a full-fledged realist outlook has been prompted in large part by his belief that it cannot possibly be reconciled with the implications of quantum mechanics for our understanding of processes and events in the subatomic domain. However, I suggest, this response should be seen as premature given the range of as-yet unresolved problems with quantum mechanics on the orthodox (Copenhagen) interpretation and also the existence of an alternative account - David Bohm's hidden-variables theory - which perfectly matches the established predictive-observational results while providing a credible realist ontology. I also examine Putnam's case for adopting a nonstandard (three-valued) "quantum logic" in relation to the thinking of other philosophers - Michael Dummett among them - who have espoused a more global or doctrinaire version of anti-realism. I conclude that Putnam's early (causal-realist) position is by no means untenable in light of the various arguments that he now takes as counting decisively against it.

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 2001•0 citations

Incommensurability

Ian Hacking

Why is so shop-soiled a topic as scientific realism once again prominent in the philosophy of science? Realism fought a great battle when Copernican and Ptolemaic world views were at issue long ago. Towards the end of the nineteenth century worries about atomism strongly contributed to anti-realism among philosophers of science. Is there a comparable scientific issue today? Maybe. One way to understand quantum mechanics is to take an idealist line. Some people argue that human observation plays an integral role in the very nature of a physical system, so that the system changes simply when it is measured. Talk of ‘the measurement problem in quantum mechanics’, the ‘ignorance interpretation’, and ‘the collapse of the wave packet’ make it no accident that contributions to the philosophy of quantum mechanics play an important part in the writings of the more original figures in the realist debate. A number of the ideas of Hilary Putnam, Bas van Fraassen or Nancy Cartwright seem to result from taking quantum mechanics as the model of all science. Conversely, numerous physicists wax philosophical. Bernard d'Espagnat has made one of the most important recent contributions to a new realism. He is partly motivated by the dissolution, in some parts of modern physics, of old realist concepts such as matter and entity. He is especially driven by some recent results, that bear the general name of Bell's inequality, and which have been thought to call in question concepts as various as logic, the temporal order of causation, and action at a distance.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 20, 1983•1 citation

Niels Bohr, Complementarity, and Realism

Henry J. Folse

The so-called “orthodox” interpretation of quantum physics attributed to Niels Bohr is commonly regarded as abandoning realism. I have already opposed this view elsewhere (Folse 1985) but partially in response to criticism of my position (Shimony 1985), here I propose to relate Bohr’s realism to recent contributions to the realism debate given by Hacking (1983), Cartwright (1983), and Ellis (1985). Specifically, I argue that Bohr’s complementarity viewpoint requires a causal entity realism. Furthermore, labeling Bohr an anti-realist with respect to theories is misleading because it assumes the correspondence theory of truth that Bohr holds quantum theory forces us to reject. Although there are many realist views, I take the root of realism to be the quest for knowledge about the reality producing the phenomena we experience. It is realism in this sense that Bohr defended and that makes science significant to metaphysics.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1986•10 citations

Epistemic values and realism in quantum mechanics: the case of contemporary solutions to the EPR controversy

Mathieu Guillermin, Tom Dedeurwaerdere

The EPR controversy between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr about the completeness of the quantum mechanics is one of the most essential contemporary debates in physics with respect to the issue of realism. Initially considered as a though-experiment, the EPR paradox was meant to evidence the inadequacy of quantum mechanics with respect to the traditional leading principle of physics such as locality, independence of the system elements of reality with respect to the observer or semantic reference of theories to elements of the reality in itself. Bell’s mathematical inquiry opened the possibility to empirically discriminate between the view of Bohr and Einstein through the so-called Bell’s inequalities. Based on these inequalities, the experimental test provided in particular by the work of Alain Aspect settled the debate in favor of Bohr and the completeness of quantum mechanics. The previously evident assumption that physical theories are describing the reality in it-self can thus be questioned. Several approaches have been proposed to face that challenge, such as the orthodox quantum physics formulation coupled with the interpretation of Bernard d’Espagnat , the non-local theory of De Broglie-Bohm or the quantum mechanics approach with extended probability of James B. Hartle . In this paper, we consider the idea according to which the field of experiments and measurements on quantum systems is a research context where several epistemic values traditionally leading the scientific activity are in conflict. Instead of conceiving the transition from classical to quantum physics along Thomas Kuhns’ theory of revolutionary paradigm change , characterized by a strong incommensurability between the old and the new approaches, we argue that this epistemological shift could be rationally understood as an incremental evolution of the epistemic values leading scientific activity. As the analysis in this paper aims to show, such a rational reconstruction shows a process of gradual change, where core epistemic values are maintained, while others are broadened to account for the new scientific approaches. The settling of the EPR controversy could be understood as the indication that the previously assumed epistemic values cannot be consistently held together in the quantum context. The values of logical consistency and empirical adequacy remained universally shared, but the controversy leads to question the other traditionally admitted principles, such as the locality, the requirement of semantic references to the reality in itself and the independence of experimental results with respect to the observer, all tightly connected with the realistic conceptions of the world. This first part of the paper characterizes the selected contemporary approaches in quantum context with respect to the modification of the epistemic principles they adopt to restore their consistency. While the de Broglie-Bohm theory explicitly follows the requirement of referring to the reality in itself at the expense of the locality principle, the approaches of d’Espagnat and of Hartle give priority to the values of theoretical framework simplicity and predictive power. In the case of d’Espagnat, the descriptive purpose of the scientific activity remains, but only in a weak objectivity perspective, restricted to the “empirical reality” in which the observer is involved. In the case of Hartle, the extended probability formulation of quantum mechanics is conceived as “an extension of familiar probability theory that incorporates negative probabilities”6, which relies on the Bayesian conception of “probabilities as instruction for betting” (negative probability is thus associated to the instruction “don’t bet”). In a second part, the paper uses this reconstruction of the various theories in order to address the epistemic status of the principles of descriptive power and of independence of the observed system with respect to the observer. In particular, our analysis aims to assess if a reference to the observer is part of the reality description or if such reference is avoidable. This is of prior interest in exploring the main characteristics of a realistic approach that would be applicable in the context of experiments and measurements on quantum systems. In that perspective, we argue that the direct holistic realism, developed by Hilary Putnam in The Threefold Cord , could be a promising intermediate option between a classical realism, which assumes that theoretical structures are describing the reality in it-self, and a more instrumentalist view, focusing mainly on the modeling of the empirical reality as a result of experimental operations while rejecting access to the reality in itself.

•Jan 1, 2012•0 citations
In this presentation, I explore the possibility of combining pluralism and scientific realism in the framework of Putnam’s pragmatic realism (Putnam, 1999; Bernstein, 2005). I illustrate my claim through the analysis of a case of Duhem-Quine underdetermination originating in the violation of Bell’s Inequalities and involving several contemporary conceptions of quantum mechanics: the instrumentalist approach called ‘no interpretation view’ (Fuchs and Peres, 2000), Bohmian Mechanics (Dürr and Teufel, 2009), the veiled reality conception (d'Espagnat, 2011) and the approach with extended probabilities (Gell-Mann and Hartle, 2012). First, I briefly expose how the violation of Bell’s Inequalities can be understood as imposing a necessary trade-off between epistemic values usually satisfied in the context of classical physics. This allows conceiving the proponents of the studied approaches as standing in “faultless” or “rational” disagreement (Gattei, 2008; Pritchard, 2009). However, while the idea of faultless disagreement becomes more and more accepted, pluralism is rarely advocated for beyond the epistemological (cognitive) human sphere. Indeed, while it is often acknowledged that several competing theories can all be reasonably endorsed (Kelly, 2005), admitting that more than one is really is usually considered as opening the door to anti-realism (about entities described by scientific theories and about truth) or to relativism. I then mobilize Putnam’s pragmatic realism to challenge this last claim, in discussing the possibility of admitting a plurality of true theories while preserving scientific realism and realism about truth. The core of Putnam’s conception is to reject sense data (or inner theater) epistemology in considering that genuine aspects of reality (and not mere mental phenomena) are met in our ordinary perception (Putnam, 1999, 2013). Putnam arrived at this conclusion after a long intellectual path initiated with the rejection of metaphysical realism and its associated understanding of truth as a unique (and transcontextual) substantive property (of correspondence to the metaphysical reality). Putnam first opposed to this type of view his internal realism in which truth becomes intimately connected to standards of rational acceptability, opening the road for conceptual pluralism (Putnam, 1981). However, this first attempt proved unsatisfying, providing no sufficient ground for realism and for discrimination between truth and verification. Putnam diagnosis is then radical: in the framework of sense data epistemology, one cannot escape the forced choice between metaphysical realism and verificationism – this is the antinomy of realism (Putnam, 1999). With pragmatic realism and the rejection of the inner theater picture, Putnam proposes an interesting alternative. It becomes possible to admit the disquotational conception of truth from Tarski while 1) escaping its deflationist interpretation without returning to metaphysical realism and 2) maintaining conceptual pluralism. According to pragmatic realism, the way a knowledge claim can be responsible to reality – can be true – is neither unique nor fixed in advance. As it will be illustrated with the discussion of the disagreement about quantum mechanics, this pragmatic realism framework permits the combined admission of conceptual pluralism and scientific realism. • Bernstein, R. J. (2005). In Y. Ben-Menahem (Ed.), Hilary Putnam (pp. 251-265): Cambridge University Press. • D'Espagnat, B. (2011). Foundations of Physics, 41(11), 1703-1716. • Dürr, D. and Teufel, S. (2009). Bohmian Mechanics: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. • Fuchs, C. A. and Peres, A. (2000). Physics Today, 53(3), 70-71. • Gattei, S. (2008). Thomas Kuhn's "Linguistic Turn" and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism: Incommensurability, Rationality and the Search for Truth: Ashgate. • Gell-Mann, M. and Hartle, J. B. (2012). Physical Review A, 85(6), 062120. • Kelly, T. (2005). In T. Szabó Gendler and J. Hawthorne
Quantum physics can be understood as an epistemological rupture that transforms the foundations of modern scientific rationality. In contrast to the Newtonian mechanistic worldview that underpinned universalist notions of progress, objectivity, and control, quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty, contextuality, non-locality, and the constitutive role of observation into scientific knowledge. These features destabilize the image of reality as a unified, hierarchically structured, and fully transparent domain, thereby challenging the epistemic premises of Western universalism. At the cultural level, this rupture finds expression in forms of scientific magical realism, where the quantum world appears as strange, paradoxical, elusive and fundamentally ungraspable. Such representations allow the quantum revolution to be interpreted not only as a theoretical breakthrough in physics but as an internal epistemological transformation of modern rationality itself. The issue is not the abandonment of rationality, but the reconfiguration of its foundations: the acknowledgment of uncertainty, contextuality, and the participatory role of the observer as structural features of knowledge. This shift is comparable to the epistemological tensions identified by postcolonial theory in situations where hegemonic discourses encounter forms of knowledge that cannot be reduced to their universalist logic. In this sense, quantum physics emerges as a form of internal epistemological alterity within Western science: while remaining part of its canon, it simultaneously rearticulates its ontological assumptions and limits its claim to constitute the sole normative regime of rationality. Extending quantum logic into social theory enables a shift from mechanistic social ontology toward a quantum social ontology, in which relationality, co-constitution, and process take precedence over fixed entities and linear causality. This transformation unfolds as a form of passive revolution, in the Gramscian sense: a profound ontological reorientation achieved not through the destruction of disciplinary institutions, but through their gradual conceptual reconfiguration. The epistemological outcome of this shift is the pluralization of knowledge and the emergence of a pluriversal onto-epistemological horizon, where scientific rationality becomes compatible with multiple cosmologies and situated ways of knowing. In this sense, the quantum turn opens a pathway toward the decolonization of knowledge and the rethinking of global order beyond universalist epistemic hierarchies.
According to scientific realism, science gives us an approximately true description of what the world is like. But what does it mean? In this chapter, we focus on the ontological and metaphysical aspects of this discussion. That is, we are concerned with the following questions: what there is, according to our best scientific theories? And how are these things that theories say exist? We start from the assumption that a genuine scientific realism must deal with these issues. Taking non-relativistic quantum mechanics as a case study, we discuss some of the challenges currently faced by a genuinely realistic stance. We argue, first, that in the ontological aspect, realists are in the same boat as science, that is, without sufficient epistemic justification to adopt the belief in the entities postulated by a single quantum theory, given that experience (currently) is not able to decide between rival theories; in the metaphysical aspect, realists also encounter problems with theory choice, given the possibility of associating more than one metaphysical theory with the description of the entities postulated by each quantum theory. The same goes for structuralist alternatives, since, even if we accept that scientific theories are committed to the existence of structures, but not objects, we still do not know what structures are, metaphysically. Finally, we move forward in the discussion with the meta-Popperian method, which serves to reduce the metaphysical alternatives associated with the ontological postulates of scientific theories. We may not know what the correct alternative is, but we have been able to progressively check which metaphysical alternatives are incompatible with each scientific theory.
In this essay, I offer a critical evaluation of Hilary Putnam's writings on epistemology and philosophy of science, in particular his engagement with interpretative problems in quantum mechanics. I trace the development of his thinking from the late 1960s when he adopted a strong causal-realist position on issues of meaning, reference, and truth, via the "internal realist" approach of his middle-period writings, to the various forms of pragmatist, naturalized, or "commonsense" epistemology proposed in his latest books. My contention is that Putnam's retreat from a full-fledged realist outlook has been prompted in large part by his belief that it cannot possibly be reconciled with the implications of quantum mechanics for our understanding of processes and events in the subatomic domain. However, I suggest, this response should be seen as premature given the range of as-yet unresolved problems with quantum mechanics on the orthodox (Copenhagen) interpretation and also the existence of an alternative account - David Bohm's hidden-variables theory - which perfectly matches the established predictive-observational results while providing a credible realist ontology. I also examine Putnam's case for adopting a nonstandard (three-valued) "quantum logic" in relation to the thinking of other philosophers - Michael Dummett among them - who have espoused a more global or doctrinaire version of anti-realism. I conclude that Putnam's early (causal-realist) position is by no means untenable in light of the various arguments that he now takes as counting decisively against it.
Why is so shop-soiled a topic as scientific realism once again prominent in the philosophy of science? Realism fought a great battle when Copernican and Ptolemaic world views were at issue long ago. Towards the end of the nineteenth century worries about atomism strongly contributed to anti-realism among philosophers of science. Is there a comparable scientific issue today? Maybe. One way to understand quantum mechanics is to take an idealist line. Some people argue that human observation plays an integral role in the very nature of a physical system, so that the system changes simply when it is measured. Talk of ‘the measurement problem in quantum mechanics’, the ‘ignorance interpretation’, and ‘the collapse of the wave packet’ make it no accident that contributions to the philosophy of quantum mechanics play an important part in the writings of the more original figures in the realist debate. A number of the ideas of Hilary Putnam, Bas van Fraassen or Nancy Cartwright seem to result from taking quantum mechanics as the model of all science. Conversely, numerous physicists wax philosophical. Bernard d'Espagnat has made one of the most important recent contributions to a new realism. He is partly motivated by the dissolution, in some parts of modern physics, of old realist concepts such as matter and entity. He is especially driven by some recent results, that bear the general name of Bell's inequality, and which have been thought to call in question concepts as various as logic, the temporal order of causation, and action at a distance.
The so-called “orthodox” interpretation of quantum physics attributed to Niels Bohr is commonly regarded as abandoning realism. I have already opposed this view elsewhere (Folse 1985) but partially in response to criticism of my position (Shimony 1985), here I propose to relate Bohr’s realism to recent contributions to the realism debate given by Hacking (1983), Cartwright (1983), and Ellis (1985). Specifically, I argue that Bohr’s complementarity viewpoint requires a causal entity realism. Furthermore, labeling Bohr an anti-realist with respect to theories is misleading because it assumes the correspondence theory of truth that Bohr holds quantum theory forces us to reject. Although there are many realist views, I take the root of realism to be the quest for knowledge about the reality producing the phenomena we experience. It is realism in this sense that Bohr defended and that makes science significant to metaphysics.
The EPR controversy between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr about the completeness of the quantum mechanics is one of the most essential contemporary debates in physics with respect to the issue of realism. Initially considered as a though-experiment, the EPR paradox was meant to evidence the inadequacy of quantum mechanics with respect to the traditional leading principle of physics such as locality, independence of the system elements of reality with respect to the observer or semantic reference of theories to elements of the reality in itself. Bell’s mathematical inquiry opened the possibility to empirically discriminate between the view of Bohr and Einstein through the so-called Bell’s inequalities. Based on these inequalities, the experimental test provided in particular by the work of Alain Aspect settled the debate in favor of Bohr and the completeness of quantum mechanics. The previously evident assumption that physical theories are describing the reality in it-self can thus be questioned. Several approaches have been proposed to face that challenge, such as the orthodox quantum physics formulation coupled with the interpretation of Bernard d’Espagnat , the non-local theory of De Broglie-Bohm or the quantum mechanics approach with extended probability of James B. Hartle . In this paper, we consider the idea according to which the field of experiments and measurements on quantum systems is a research context where several epistemic values traditionally leading the scientific activity are in conflict. Instead of conceiving the transition from classical to quantum physics along Thomas Kuhns’ theory of revolutionary paradigm change , characterized by a strong incommensurability between the old and the new approaches, we argue that this epistemological shift could be rationally understood as an incremental evolution of the epistemic values leading scientific activity. As the analysis in this paper aims to show, such a rational reconstruction shows a process of gradual change, where core epistemic values are maintained, while others are broadened to account for the new scientific approaches. The settling of the EPR controversy could be understood as the indication that the previously assumed epistemic values cannot be consistently held together in the quantum context. The values of logical consistency and empirical adequacy remained universally shared, but the controversy leads to question the other traditionally admitted principles, such as the locality, the requirement of semantic references to the reality in itself and the independence of experimental results with respect to the observer, all tightly connected with the realistic conceptions of the world. This first part of the paper characterizes the selected contemporary approaches in quantum context with respect to the modification of the epistemic principles they adopt to restore their consistency. While the de Broglie-Bohm theory explicitly follows the requirement of referring to the reality in itself at the expense of the locality principle, the approaches of d’Espagnat and of Hartle give priority to the values of theoretical framework simplicity and predictive power. In the case of d’Espagnat, the descriptive purpose of the scientific activity remains, but only in a weak objectivity perspective, restricted to the “empirical reality” in which the observer is involved. In the case of Hartle, the extended probability formulation of quantum mechanics is conceived as “an extension of familiar probability theory that incorporates negative probabilities”6, which relies on the Bayesian conception of “probabilities as instruction for betting” (negative probability is thus associated to the instruction “don’t bet”). In a second part, the paper uses this reconstruction of the various theories in order to address the epistemic status of the principles of descriptive power and of independence of the observed system with respect to the observer. In particular, our analysis aims to assess if a reference to the observer is part of the reality description or if such reference is avoidable. This is of prior interest in exploring the main characteristics of a realistic approach that would be applicable in the context of experiments and measurements on quantum systems. In that perspective, we argue that the direct holistic realism, developed by Hilary Putnam in The Threefold Cord , could be a promising intermediate option between a classical realism, which assumes that theoretical structures are describing the reality in it-self, and a more instrumentalist view, focusing mainly on the modeling of the empirical reality as a result of experimental operations while rejecting access to the reality in itself.