Further reflections on Critical Realism

We deal with the main points of Fleetwood's response to our earlier paper and argue that our main contentions remain intact. Critical Realism (CR) remains epistemologically weak; its claims for the usefulness of explanatory power are unconvincing; and, in particular, it provides little help in assessing rival theories. Furthermore, its appreciation of alternative theoretical accounts is underdeveloped because of the tendency to use broad ontological claims to delineate a preferred type of theory. Finally, we argue that the further elaboration of CR by Fleetwood serves to illuminate rather than ameliorate its shortcomings. © 2005 Taylor & Francis.