Eriksson on critical realism: a comment
AbstractThis note offers a critique of Ralf Eriksson's treatment of Critical Realism. Eriksson, in the context of an analysis of Keynes, makes several mistaken claims about Critical Realism. Specifically, contrary to Eriksson, Critical Realism does not claim that the world is independent of consciousness, that isolation and closure are equivalent, that abstraction and closure are equivalent, that Lawson employs double standards in the possibility of closed systems, or that realist theories must be simple. Eriksson attacks a vulgar form of realism, but not Critical Realism as it currently stands. We also argue that Eriksson's misinterpretations may be partially due to some ambiguous statements in the Critical Realist literature.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Review of Political Economy.
Volume (Year): 18 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CRPE20
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.