Abstract
We deal with the main points of Fleetwood's response to our earlier paper and argue that our main contentions remain intact. Critical Realism (CR) remains epistemologically weak; its claims for the usefulness of explanatory power are unconvincing; and, in particular, it provides little help in assessing rival theories. Furthermore, its appreciation of alternative theoretical accounts is underdeveloped because of the tendency to use broad ontological claims to delineate a preferred type of theory. Finally, we argue that the further elaboration of CR by Fleetwood serves to illuminate rather than ameliorate its shortcomings.