"Against" Realism Travis Norsen has written an article entitled "Against Realism". In it, he argues that the phrase "local realism" is not meaningful. Against Realism (2006) Abstract: "We examine the prevalent use of the phrase “local realism” in the context of Bell’s Theorem and associated experiments, with a focus on the question: what exactly is the “realism” in “local realism” supposed to mean? Carefully surveying several possible meanings, we argue that all of them are flawed in one way or another as attempts to point out a second premise (in addition to locality) on which the Bell inequalities rest, and (hence) which might be rejected in the face of empirical data violating the inequalities. We thus suggest that this vague and abused phrase “local realism” should be banned from future discussions of these issues, and urge physicists to revisit the foundational questions behind Bell’s Theorem." ----- My questions for your consideration: 1. What does realism mean to you? 2. Einstein said: "I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is: an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." Is this realism? 3. In your opinion, is "realism" an assumption of Bell's Theorem? If so, where does it arise?