The article is a lightly edited transcript of a digital roundtable discussion. The participants were invited based on their prior work on critical realism and epistemology. The roundtable discussion includes introductory statements on judgemental rationality by Jamie Morgan, Ruth Groff, Dorothea Schoppek, Leigh Price, and Frédéric Vandenberghe, followed by a discussion between the participants on a variety of topics related to judgemental rationality. The discussion demonstrates a variety of opinions and perspectives, as well as the clashing of opinions in a (...) respectful manner. The roundtable provides interesting discussion points about Bhaskar's approach to judgemental rationality, how we adjudicate between different meta-theories (such as between that of Bhaskar and Harré), and what role should normative values have in theoretical adjudication. (shrink)

There are two overarching questions that guide this paper: What are some potential issues with the criterion for judgemental rationality as developed by Bhaskar? How can critical realism itself be justified without foundationalist assumptions or an infinite regress of justification? The paper considers how Bhaskar’s criterion for theory choice – developed in the natural sciences – can also be applied in the social sciences, how a criterion developed within epistemic relativity can be applied to overcome judgemental relativity, and explores justification (...) of critical realism and of research inspired by this philosophy of science. It will be argued that a fractal form of justification can be an important approach to justify critical realist philosophy and its meta-philosophy (or ‘the philosophy of philosophy’). I also seek to demonstrate that such fractal justification, and insights from other fractally coherent philosophies, can be helpful to provide answers to several of the issues with Bhaskar’s criterion for judgemental rationality that are presented. (shrink)