My philosophy, put in simple terms

I am a logical and scientific pluralist. I accept the existence of several legitimate non-equivalent logical systems and scientific theories used in specific contexts or in their particular domains of application, with no privilege from one over the other except in what respects pragmatic aims. This position does not imply relativism, at least concerning knowledge, truth and the validity of science,  since I believe that the choice of a logic or a theory is made by pragmatic criteria such as simplicity, capacity of expression, adequacy, and even beauty. In my opinion, science looks for truth in the strong correspondence sense, but I think this is something unattainable. Anyway, it is this, truth aiming to know the things as they are what is looked for. 

I am not an anti-realist since I accept the existence of an objective, independent reality. The problem is that we don’t know what this reality is precisely. All we have are our best theories, which support our belief that they describe reality with some degree of confidence. But knowledge is not certain, except in some trivial cases; for instance, it is reasonable to say that it is true that I am in front of my computer right now and that this is not just a dream of mine. 

I am not a scientific realist because I don’t believe our theories are true or even approximately true. Perhaps some assertion within some theory can be said to be true, such as that most fish live in water. But to say that a theory as a whole is true is something very difficult to accept, even if we speak of mathematics; 1+1=2 is true in the standard model of natural numbers, but in the group Z2, 1+1=0.  This is mainly due to the vagueness of the notion of truth. 

We live in a world and describe parcels of it by using concepts we formulate and with our resulting theories; we use logic to ground concepts and `structure' the theories. These theories vary and change from time to time. Our understanding increases and gives us a better approach to what we call reality. But the reality we know is a construction of ours in the same sense that when you look at a pencil partially immersed in a cup with water, properly speaking, you don't see the pencil. If you did, you did not `see' it broken. We interact with the world, and from these interactions, our intellectual capacity, cultural aspects and perhaps much more, we elaborate a conception of reality (in Schrödinger's. terms, our brains produce an objectivation of reality -- Mind and Matter, Chap.3).  

So, there is a reality out of us, independent of us, and there is a reality we elaborate on; as the mathematician René Thom has said (in his book Paraboles et Catastrophes), ``Each science is, first of all, a study of a phenomenology''. The task of science is to approach these two realities.