I consider direct realism the best version of realism, since unlike Locke, it does not infer the existence of the external world, but simply presupposes it. Direct realism is the theory that suggests that we directly perceive the external world and that external objects exist in reality, furthermore these objects are independent of our experience. One of the merits of this view is the way it responds to the skeptic, who will argue that the realist must somehow demonstrate, with certainty, that his experiences as a table are actually caused by a table (1), not a demon wicked (2). However, Devitt argues that a realist does not need certainty, but only needs to change the epistemological standard, and instead ask whether it is more reasonable to do so. This argument stems from the belief that there is an external world that exists independently of ourselves and does not exist. appear to be contradictory to our experiences. Devitt argues that this belief, although not certain, is easily explainable along Darwinian lines, because any species that did not presuppose the existence of the external world would presumably be killed by natural selection. While there may be other objections to this argument, I will focus on two other predominant objections. The first will be that it is not specifically concerned with reality, or whether objects exist, and will therefore be open to objection from an idealist, who would argue that innate belief in the external world arises from the perception of ideas in the mind of God. However , I would argue that this is not the intention of the argument and can be contested in the same way as the skeptic's argument. The purpose of natural selection is to explain why we have an innate belief in the external world, despite not being certain of its existence. A direct realist may respond by asking whether it is more reasonable to believe that we all perceive ideas in the mind of God, or whether we believe that objects exist because if we did not, we would not be able to function, and cease