Abstract
Epistemic stances are collections of attitudes, values, aims, and policies relevant to assessing evidence, eventuating in belief or agnosticism in relation to scientific theories and models. If more than one stance is permissible, this would seem to undermine certain debates between scientific realists and antirealists. In reply to skepticism about this, I argue that: (1) hopes for a shared basis for assessing evidence to serve as a neutral arbiter either beg the question against one side of the debate, or are insufficiently probative; and (2) rejecting the superior rationality of stances supporting realism does not amount to skepticism about science.