At the risk of getting too technical, I realise now that “anti-realist” was the wrong phrase for me to use. I think it would have been better for Dummett to have described his position as “anti-Platonist” (or, indeed, stick with “nominalist”, which has a long and noble history), rather than “anti-realist”; his objection is not to “reality”, but to the thesis that certain concepts (logic, number, etc) are “real” rather than merely being a product of the human mind.
Has there been any philosopher since McTaggart who denies that our perception of “reality” is completely erroneous? Churchland, perhaps?
Poor Dummett. A man without a country as materialists all around him these days insist that products of the mind are very real indeed — even physical. Certainly, I fit the bill for your description, but whether I qualify as a philosopher is up to you. One person here has said that, due to my lack of formal education, I’m all mixed up about philosophy and don’t really understand what I’m saying.