Dear Keira,

In the day-to-day practice of social science, Pragmatists and Critical Realist do much the same things. However, at their core, the two philosophies are incompatible. Pragmatism rejects the idea that propositions must reflect an underlying reality or truth. A proposition is true if it works in practice. Critical Realists argue that this position ignores ontology and runs the risk of making the epistemic fallacy. Beliefs and propositions that work in practice may well be based on wrong assumptions on the nature of social reality. “It works is practice” is not good enough for Critical Realism. Having said that, if “it works in practice”, certainly if it does so many times, it suggests that the proposition captures at least something of the underlying reality. It contributes to an epistemic body of evidence of what underlying reality is like ontologically.

Hope this helps,

Roel.

I think you should clarify your use of language around "theoretical lens." Pragmatism is your paradigmatic view, while theoretical is vastly different. Might I add the nuance of moving from theoretical to conceptual.

Now, I will make a bold statement. Everyone is pragmatic to a degree. How you move from satisficing to optimal is what matters.

I agree with much of what Roel Rutten said. In particular, a key point in philosophical pragmatism is the rejection of a philosophy of knowledge based on ontology and epistemology. Since those are still key components of critical realism, there isn't any way to make the two compatible at a philosophical level.