Talk:Critical realism (philosophy of the social sciences)

Creation
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)

It would also be good to refer to other theorists here. Bhaskar is not the only one... e.g. Bernard Lonergan published some of his ideas on this in 1973... This article makes it appear that Bhaskar is the only voice on this. Matthew Charlesworth (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Content is duplicated in a book.
Here is the text in the article:

Here is the text in the book: I received an email from a user that points out that the book in which I found the original text was published in 2018 after that the content was inserted in Wikipedia on 11:53, 24 August 2013. This was the fifth edition of the book. In, the content cannot be found. This suggests that the copying was in the opposite direction, from Wikipedia to the book. I don't know what are the guidelines in such case. In one way or another, this situation seems to require a special treatment. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If this is really plagiarism by the author of the textbook, shouldn't that be reported to the publisher (Routledge)? 195.195.176.146 (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)