The choice is very clear insofar as the two paradigms are largely incommensurable, all they have in common being the actual physical phenomena on which, ultimately, all forms of physics whatsoever are founded. This being the case, there are three distinguishing criteria for selection: i) the comparative predictive power of the two paradigms...
So can you show us some predictions calculated under Normal Realism, along with the basis of these calculations, and the associated observations confirming these predictions?
You have mentioned the Pioneer Anomaly. Can you show any calculations based upon your spin/angular momentum concepts that give a predictive value to what we should see?
For what you call Realism, I have already offered up the prediction of the g-factor, and to that I add the prediction of the rate of speed-up of orbit of binary pulsars based upon their quadrupole emission of gravitational radiation (gravity waves).
ii) their comparative conceptual efficiency according to the criterion known as Ockham’s Razor
There is little point in discussing Ockham's Razor in the view of comparing two competing theories until their predictive merits have been analysed and considered sufficiently equivalent. My theory that Goddidit last thursday in exactly the way we see will always win the Ockham's Razor test, but is doomed to failure when it comes to predictive capability.
iii) the least misuse, or jargonising of ordinary language
{must resist, must resist}
Let's just repeat as above that let's compare predictive merits before we even go here...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.