Why believe in scientific realism? The answer that overwhelms the mainstream debate is “the no miracles argument” (“NMA”): realism best explains the observational success of scientific theories. Yet more than thirty years ago another argument was proposed that has been called “the basic argument” (“BA”): realism best explains the observed phenomena. BA has been almost entirely ignored since. The paper argues that this is a serious mistake. BA is a good argument for realism, NMA is dubious one. In light of this, realists should forget about NMA and settle for BA. Why has BA been ignored? Experience suggests that philosophers find it too close to science and mistakenly hanker after a “more philosophical” justification for realism. No such justification is needed or desirable.