Abstract

Potter et al.’s (1999) response to my ‘Against Relativism in Psychology, on Balance’ (Parker, 1999) neatly summarizes what they take a ‘critical realist’ position to be and how ‘relativists’ should defend themselves. Their response also illustrates why the version of critical realism I elaborated is more thoroughly critically relativist than Potter et al. assume and how their version of relativism actually rests on a rather uncritical subscription to realism