Antirealism

Depending on the type of antirealist one might be they might argue for the following at least according to ChatGPT (in italics):

That depends on the type of antirealism. Different antirealists deny independence in different domains:

• Metaphysical Antirealism – Reality itself is dependent on perception or conceptual schemes.
  
  This is the position I must most fervently disagree with. I could die tomorrow, but reality still exists. The Sun could go supernova, wipe out all life on Earth. That too is likely a reality, and little doubt it will happen, but that also will be the reality.
  
  So OK, not all antirealists buy into an extreme subjective idealism. But realists would agree that we need to be careful when addressing reality, that our biases and framework need to be taken into account. There is nothing new here.
  
  
• Scientific Antirealism – Unobservable entities (e.g., quarks, wavefunctions) are just useful models, not necessarily real.
  
  Of course, some aspects of science are useful models that describe reality. Are electrons real? As Seth Lloyd might put it, I am willing to use a high-voltage cattle prod on their behalf – electrons speak for themselves. What some post-modernists get wrong (and here I use that as a pejorative). Science never gets to the final answer, but it is never in doubt that it is looking for a description of what reality is.
  
  Some antirealists may argue that things like wavefunctions and quarks are just useful models or place holders. I might agree in a sense, but then if our wavefunctions and quarks are false, that is the reality. Science thrives on being under constant revision and being tested to destruction.
  
  
• Moral Antirealism – Moral values don’t exist independently; they are human constructs.
  
  Agree wholeheartedly. Morality does not exist, though people succumb to the illusion. And this is a result of free will being a human construct and not existing either. My point is that morality, while it exists as a concept and perhaps an evolved feeling, it definitely does not apply to cats, bricks and the rest of the cosmos. And that’s a reality.
  
  
• Mathematical Antirealism – Numbers and mathematical objects exist only as human inventions, not as mind-independent entities.
  
  I really don’t care about this one. Crows, ravens,  and many other animals have rudimentary mathematical skills. So, it appears not to be a purely human construct. Mathematicians have an existential crisis over this; are numbers real or a construct? So what?
  
  
• Semantic/Truth Antirealism – Truth is not correspondence with an objective reality but is determined by coherence, verification, or social practices.
  
  There are two aspects here. The first is does the Truth® exist? To me, it seems like a logical necessity. Now, do I or anyone else have access to this Truth®? There are likely degrees of accuracy. Saying a tomato is a fruit is knowledge, not putting it in a fruit salad is wisdom, and saying it is the Brooklyn Bridge is completely false.
  
  

Of course, antirealism (like postmodernism) is, in a sense, self-refuting. If reality and the Truth® are some constructs, then so is antirealism itself. Apparently, antirealists can be comfortable with a self-refuting worldview.

The only logical position about reality is to be cautiously agnostic, not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Continuously evaluate any position we might hold and walk away from falsehoods.

A quick edit for any passing antirealist:

Science seeks correspondence by destroying coherence