This 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 Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Volume (Year): 18 (2006) Issue (Month): 1 (January) Pages: 105-112 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF