Critical realism, psychology, and the crisis of replication: A reply to Haig; Derksen & Morawski; and Trafimow

Theory and Psychology 34 (5):604-610 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The commentaries provided by Haig; Derksen and Morawski; and Trafimow vary considerably in how they address critical realism and its implications for replication. Haig’s preference for Kaidesoja’s “naturalised” version of critical realism and Lipton’s inference to the best explanation is deeply problematic. While Derksen and Morawski concede that they deal only indirectly with critical realism, their endorsement of “performativity” negates it. In Trafimow’s case, ontology’s regulative role is untenably diminished and ultimately supplanted by classic methodologism. I conclude that replication should be replaced by exploratory stratified contextualism.

Author's Profile

Robert Archer
University of Warwick (PhD)

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-10-01

Downloads
26 (#98,502)

6 months
26 (#96,940)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?