Due to the influence of postmodernism, historical anti-realism has come to exercise a massive influence in contemporary philosophy of history. Edited by Tor Egil Førland and Branko Mitrovic, The Povery of Anti-realism: Critical Perspectives on Postmodernist Philosophy of History presents perspectives that oppose anti-realist understanding of historians' work. The first part of the book gives an overview of contemporary anti-realist philosophy of history and shows that its claims are either so wide-ranging that they apply to all scientific knowledge, or pertain only to a select part of historians' work. In the second part, the authors criticize major anti-realist tenets. These include: the assertion that the colligatory concepts historians use are without reference in the past; the idea that historical facts are theory-dependent and therefore unable to upend prevailing theories; Paul Roth's application of Nelson Goodman's "irrealist" theory of worldmaking to suggest a plurality of pasts; and the belief that multiple describability prevents historians from providing true and testable accounts of the past. The third and final part shows that the political implications of anti-realism are often other than left-leaning anti-realists think. Their reactions when confronted with the consequences of their theories indicate the inconsistency and untenability of postmodernist philosophy of history. and the belief that multiple describability prevents historians from providing true and testable accounts of the past.

The third and final part shows that the political implications of anti-realism are often other than left-leaning anti-realists think. Their reactions when confronted with the consequences of their theories indicate the inconsistency and untenability of postmodernist philosophy of history.and the belief that multiple describability prevents historians from providing true and testable accounts of the past. The third and final part shows that the political implications of anti-realism are often other than left-leaning anti-realists think. Their reactions when confronted with the consequences of their theories indicate the inconsistency and untenability of postmodernist philosophy of history.and the belief that multiple describability prevents historians from providing true and testable accounts of the past. The third and final part shows that the political implications of anti-realism are often other than left-leaning anti-realists think. Their reactions when confronted with the consequences of their theories indicate the inconsistency and untenability of postmodernist philosophy of history.