 The above kind of minimal metaepistemological realism is plausibly the default presupposition of many first-order debates in mainstream epistemology, even though—as a metaepistemological position—it is not often explicitly argued for (Carter 2016: Ch. 1). There are, however, some notable exceptions in the recent literature, due to Paul Boghossian (2006) and Terence Cuneo (2007). Both Boghossian and Cuneo share a common kind of “pro-realist” argumentative strategy, which is to argue that metaepistemological anti-realism, in one or more of its forms, is implausible or incoherent, and thus, that a realist position holds up better by contrast.