This concept is known as instrumental truth.
The second view is the realist view, which relates to the correspondence theory of truth. The realist sees truth in the opposite way that an instrumentalist does – a theory must either be true or false. Also, the realist says that the truth exits in our world, and we discover theories (not invent them), in order to uncover the truth. These theories describe what entities exist in our world, what their composition and properties are, and how they correspond to, and affect other entities. In the realist view, the electrons in the aforementioned example really do exist, and are true, if the properties of electrons correspond to the relationships and properties of these entities in our physical world.
The third view is the conceptual relativist view, which is related to the coherence theory of truth. The conceptual relativist sees truth in yet another distinct way from both instrumentalists and realists – a scientific theory is true if it is accepted by a group, or community of scientists. Every group of scientists see the world in a different way, and thus develop a “conceptual framework” that defines truth for this group of individuals. This conceptual framework consists of beliefs, research methods, values, and programs that are individual to a community. The conceptual relativist believes that our observations of the world are influenced by our conceptual framework, so our theories we develop must also cohere with this framework. Sometimes, a conceptual revolution occurs in which a group’s conceptual framework is replaced by a new one. Conceptual relativists believe that the new one is not necessarily more true than the previous one; it just better meets the ever-changing demands of the scientific community.
It is safe to say that each of these philosophical views of truth in science gives deep insight into the meaning of truth and its scientific application in the world. Ultimately, which view best represents the truth will be up to you, the reader, to decide.