The goal of science is to clarify a sort of "truth" about the world and how it works. But how do we arrive at this concept of “truth”? Epistomology, or the study of the origin, nature, and limits to the production of human knowledge, provides a multitude of frameworks to work with. These approaches address the creation of knowledge and provide the scientist or observer with a reference from which to test the limits and validity of the knowledge created by the research. The goal of this article is to explore two different epistemologies by comparing and contrasting how they arrive at the “truth” of science and knowledge production. A historical perspective will be provided in order to provide a framework for understanding how these different epistemologies emerged. Scientific realism and phenomenology provide an interesting opportunity to address how knowledge and knowledge creation can be propagated in various ways. The birth of scientific realism began as a reaction to the logical positivism movement that reigned in philosophical thought at the beginning of the 20th century. Logical positivism argued that empirical exploration was only observable and that truth could only be explained if it could be seen. However, scientific realism addressed the weaknesses inherent in logical positivism. He addressed the need for the cyclical nature between theory and observation and bridged the understanding of time. One of the main assertions supported by scientific realism is the concept that scientific knowledge is progressive in nature and that it is capable of predicting phenomena successfully. The theory provided credibility to objects that were unobservable and they… at the center of the paper… and with the world. Today, phenomenologists identify with three broad paradigms. The first paradigm considers phenomenology as a science that derives from the first-person perspective and how it is experienced by the observer. In this case, the observed world comes from a singular place that is experienced only by the individual and meaning can only be derived as it appears to the individual and can be considered anti-objective. This is in stark contrast to epistemological approaches that rely on empirical data, such as scientific realism. Instead, phenomenology argues that the subjective perspective can clarify the truth once it is “intersubjectively articulated and confirmed.” (Luft and Overgaard, 2012). They would argue that once a person describes an account of their own world, it would also qualify for others and therefore become communal in nature.