Abstract Quasi-truth (a.k.a. pragmatic truth or partial truth) is typically advanced as a framework accounting for incompleteness and uncertainty in the actual practices of science. Also, it is said to be useful for accommodating cases of inconsistency in science without leading to triviality. In this paper, we argue that the formalism available does not deliver all that is promised. We examine the standard account of quasi-truth in the literature, advanced by da Costa and collaborators in many places, and argue that it cannot legitimately account for incompleteness in science. We shall claim that it conflates paraconsistency and paracompleteness. It also cannot properly account for inconsistencies, because no direct contradiction of the form S ∧ ¬S can be quasi-true according to the framework; contradictions simply have no place in the formalism. Finally, we advance an alternative interpretation of the formalism in terms of dealing with distinct contexts where incompatible information is dealt with. This does not save the original program, but seems to make better sense of the apparatus.

RESUMO Tradicionalmente, ser realista sobre algo significa crer na existência independente desse algo. Em termos ontológicos, isto é, acerca do que há, o realismo científico pode ser entendido como envolvendo a adoção de uma ontologia que seja cientificamente informada. Mas, segundo alguns filósofos, a atitude realista deve ir além da ontologia. A forma como essa exigência tem sido entendida envolve fornecer uma metafísica para as entidades postuladas pela ciência. Discutimos como duas abordagens em voga encaram o desafio de fornecer uma metafísica para a ciência: uma forma de naturalismo e a abordagem Viking/Toolbox. Por fim, apresentamos uma terceira via, que adota o melhor das duas abordagens: o método metapopperiano, que foca em descartarmos quais as alternativas erradas, ou melhor dizendo, os perfis metafísicos incompatíveis com certas teorias. Apresentamos o método metapopperiano, um método de metametafísica capaz de avaliar objetivamente quais os perfis metafísicos que são incompatíveis com certas teorias científicas. Para isso, usaremos como estudo de caso a mecânica quântica, mostrando resultados obtidos previamente. Com esse método, podemos ver como a ciência pode ser usada para evitar o erro em questões metafísicas. Essa seria, na nossa opinião, uma forma de desenvolver uma relação produtiva entre ciência e metafísica.

ABSTRACT Traditionally, being a realist about something means believing in the independent existence of that something. In this line of thought, a scientific realist is someone who believes in the objective existence of the entities postulated by our best scientific theories. In metaphysical terms, what does that mean? In ontological terms, i.e., in terms of what exists, scientific realism can be understood as involving the adoption of a scientifically informed ontology. But according to some philosophers, a realistic attitude must go beyond ontology. The way in which this requirement has been understood involves providing a metaphysics for the entities postulated by science, that is, answering questions about the nature of what ontology admits to exist. We discuss how two fashionable approaches face the challenge of providing a metaphysics for science: a form of naturalism and the Viking/Toolbox approach. Finally, we present a third way, which adopts the best of both approaches: the meta-Popperian method, which focuses on discarding the wrong alternatives, or better saying, the metaphysical profiles incompatible with certain theories. We present the meta-Popperian method, a metametaphysical method capable of objectively assessing which metaphysical profiles are incompatible with certain scientific theories. For this, we will use quantum mechanics as a case study, presenting some previously obtained results. As our focus is on methodological questions about the relationship between metaphysics and science; with this method, we can see how science can be used to avoid error in metaphysical issues. In our opinion, this would be a way to develop a productive relationship between science and metaphysics.