Talk:Critical realism (philosophy of the social sciences)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Creation[edit]

So I created this page because the old Critical realism page lacked focus. This page focuses on Bhaskar's philosophy: so it might be better entitled Critical realism (Roy Bhaskar). Thoughts? Omicron18 (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not (re: including Bhaskar's name in the title). Many of the critical realists influenced by some of his work openly renounce him and point to the origins of his ontological arguments in Marxism... It's fair to say that he is a crucial figure, no question, but to allow him to 'own' the philosophy in this way would be too much, especially given that there are thousands of other publications establishing and developing critical realist approaches to social science that include little or no reference to him. Nevertheless, I think it was correct to split the pages, as the whole CR approach in social science is only tangentially related to a lot of the more analytic stuff about perception that was on the old page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.230.166 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd second the previous unsigned comment - pretty much all the critical realists in Politics and IR have rejected Bhaskar's later work and have noted that in any case his role was more that of making explicit an ontology that was already present in Marx's work, and especially in reconstructed twentieth century Marxism(s). I would, however, suggest changing the sub-title from '(philosophy of the social sciences)' to '(philosophy of social science)', since the singular seems to work better in this case, and is the more common formulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.230.166 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)