 Perhaps anti-realists are right. But if so, they need to explain how a practice based on a pervasive illusion can be as successful as modern science. Anti-realists perturbed by the manifestability of realist truth are revisionists about parts of our linguistic practice, and the consequence of this revisionist stance is that mathematics and science require extensive and non-trivial revision. The debate about whether classical logic should (or can) be rejected on meaning-theoretic grounds is ongoing: Burgess 1984, Hellman 1989, Michael 1999 and Read 2000 are critical of Dummett’s case for rejecting classical logic, whereas Cogburn 2005, Cozzo 1994, Prawitz 1977, 1987, 1994 and Tennant 1997 are, in varying degrees, supportive. 