Home > Uncategorized > Critical realism and scientific explanation

Critical realism and scientific explanation

from Lars Syll

18350‘Critical realism’ is very similar to the jargon-dense, literary ‘critical theory’ taught in literature departments.



One of the most important tasks of social sciences is to explain the events, processes, and structures that take place and act in society. But the researcher cannot stop at this. As a consequence of the relations and connections that the researcher finds, a will and demand arise for critical reflection on the findings. To show that unemployment depends on rigid social institutions or adaptations to European economic aspirations to integration, for instance, constitutes at the same time a critique of these conditions. It also entails an implicit critique of other explanations that one can show to be built on false beliefs. The researcher can never be satisfied with establishing that false beliefs exist but must go on to seek an explanation for why they exist. What is it that maintains and reproduces them? To show that something causes false beliefs – and to explain why – constitutes at the same time a critique of that thing. expl

This I think is something particular to the humanities and social sciences. There is no full equivalent in the natural sciences, since the objects of their study are not fundamentally created by human beings in the same sense as the objects of study in social sciences. We do not criticize apples for falling to earth in accordance with the law of gravitation.

The explanatory critique that constitutes all good social science thus has repercussions on the reflective person in society. To digest the explanations and understandings that social sciences can provide means a simultaneous questioning and critique of one’s self-understanding and the actions and attitudes it gives rise to. Science can play an important emancipating role in this way. Human beings can fulfill and develop themselves only if they do not base their thoughts and actions on false beliefs about reality. Fulfillment may also require changing fundamental structures of society. Understanding of the need for this change may issue from various sources like everyday praxis and reflection as well as from science.

Explanations of societal phenomena must be subject to criticism, and this criticism must be an essential part of the task of social science. Social science has to be an explanatory critique. The researcher’s explanations have to constitute a critical attitude toward the very object of research, society. Hopefully, the critique may result in proposals for how the institutions and structures of society can be constructed. The social scientist has a responsibility to try to elucidate possible alternatives to existing institutions and structures.

bhaskarIn a time when scientific relativism is expanding, it is important to keep up the claim for not reducing science to a pure discursive level. We have to maintain the Enlightenment tradition of thinking of reality as principally independent of our views of it and of the main task of science as studying the structure of this reality. Perhaps the most important contribution a researcher can make is reveal what this reality that is the object of science actually looks like.

Science is made possible by the fact that there are structures that are durable and are independent of our knowledge or beliefs about them. There exists a reality beyond our theories and concepts of it. It is this independent reality that our theories in some way deal with. Contrary to positivism, I cannot see that the main task of science is to detect event-regularities between observed facts. Rather, that task must be conceived as identifying the underlying structure and forces that produce the observed events.

The problem with positivist social science is not that it gives the wrong answers, but rather that in a strict sense it does not give answers at all. Its explanatory models presuppose that the social reality is “closed,” and since social reality is fundamentally “open,” models of that kind cannot explain anything of what happens in such a universe. Positivist social science has to postulate closed conditions to make its models operational and then – totally unrealistically – impute these closed conditions to society’s real structure.

In the face of the kind of methodological individualism and rational choice theory that dominate positivist social science we have to admit that even if knowing the aspirations and intentions of individuals are necessary prerequisites for giving explanations of social events, they are far from sufficient. Even the most elementary “rational” actions in society presuppose the existence of social forms that it is not possible to reduce to the intentions of individuals.

archerThe overarching flaw with methodological individualism and rational choice theory is basically that they reduce social explanations to purportedly individual characteristics. But many of the characteristics and actions of the individual originate in and are made possible only through society and its relations. Society is not reducible to individuals, since the social characteristics, forces, and actions of the individual are determined by pre-existing social structures and positions. Even though society is not a volitional individual, and the individual is not an entity given outside of society, the individual (actor) and the society (structure) have to be kept analytically distinct. They are tied together through the individual’s reproduction and transformation of already given social structures.

With a non-reductionist approach we avoid both determinism and voluntarism. For although the individual in society is formed and influenced by social structures that he does not construct himself, he can as an individual influence and change the given structures in another direction through his own actions. In society the individual is situated in roles or social positions that give limited freedom of action (through conventions, norms, material restrictions, etc.), but at the same time there is no principal necessity that we must blindly follow or accept these limitations. However, as long as social structures and positions are reproduced (rather than transformed), the actions of the individual will have a tendency to go in a certain direction.

What makes knowledge in social sciences possible is the fact that society consists of social structures and positions that influence the individuals of society, partly through their being the necessary prerequisite for the actions of individuals but also because they dispose individuals to act (within a given structure) in a certain way. These structures constitute the “deep structure” of society.

We have to acknowledge the ontological fact that the world is mind-independent. This does not in any way reduce the epistemological fact that we can only know what the world is like from within our languages, theories, or discourses. But that the world is epistemologically mediated by theories does not mean that it is the product of them.

Our observations and theories are concept-dependent without therefore necessarily being concept-determined. There is a reality existing independently of our knowledge and theories of it. Although we cannot apprehend it without using our concepts and theories, these are not the same as reality itself. Reality and our concepts of it are not identical. Social science is made possible by existing structures and relations in society that are continually reproduced and transformed by different actors.

Social science is relational. It studies and uncovers the social structures in which individuals participate and position themselves. It is these relations that have enough continuity, autonomy, and causal power to endure in society and be the real object of knowledge in social science. It is also only in their capacity as social relations and positions that individuals can be given power or resources (or the lack of them). To be a chieftain, a capital-owner, or a slave is not an individual property of an individual, but can come about only when individuals are integral parts of certain social structures and positions. Social relations and contexts cannot be reduced to individual phenomena – just as a cheque presupposes a banking system and tribe-members presuppose a tribe.

Explanations and predictions of social phenomena require theory constructions. Just looking for correlations between events is not enough. One has to get under the surface and see the deeper underlying structures and mechanisms that essentially constitute the social system.

Contrary to the well-known symmetry hypothesis, I would also maintain that explanation and prediction are not the same. To explain something is to uncover the generative mechanisms behind an event, while prediction only concerns actual events and does not have to say anything about the underlying causes of the events in question. The barometer may be used for predicting today’s weather changes. But these predictions are not explanatory, since they say nothing of the underlying causes.

Methodologically, this implies that the basic question one has to pose when studying social relations and events is what are the fundamental relations without which they would cease to exist. The answer will point to causal mechanisms and tendencies that act in the concrete contexts we study. Whether these mechanisms are activated and what effects they will have in that case it is not possible to predict, since these depend on accidental and variable relations. Every social phenomenon is determined by a host of both necessary and contingent relations, and it is impossible in practice to have complete knowledge of these constantly changing relations. That is also why we can never confidently predict them. What we can do, through learning about the mechanisms of the structures of society, is to identify the driving forces behind them, thereby making it possible to indicate the direction in which things tend to develop.

If we want the knowledge we produce to have practical relevance, our the knowledge we aspire to and our methods have to adapt to our object of study. In social sciences – such as economics, history, or anthropology – we will never reach complete explanations. Instead we have to aim for satisfactory and adequate explanations.

As is well known, there is no unequivocal criterion for what should be considered a satisfactory explanation. All explanations (with the possible exception of those in mathematics and logic) are fragmentary and incomplete; self-evident relations and conditions are often left out so that one can concentrate on the nodal points. Explanations must, however, be real in the sense that they “correspond” to reality and are capable of being used.

The relevance of an explanation can be judged only by reference to a given aspect of a problem. An explanation is then relevant if, for example, it can point out the generative mechanisms that rule a phenomenon or if it can illuminate the aspect one is concerned with. To be relevant from the explanatory viewpoint, the adduced theory has to provide a good basis for believing that the phenomenon to be explained really does or did take place. One has to be able to say: “That’s right! That explains it. Now I understand why it happened.”

While positivism tries to develop a general a priori criterion for evaluation of scientific explanations, it would be better to realize that all we can try for is adequate explanations, which it is not possible to disconnect from the specific, contingent circumstances that are always incident to what is to be explained. I think we have to be modest and acknowledge that our models and theories are time-space relative.

Besides being an aspect of the situation in which the event takes place, an explanatory factor ought also to be causally effective; that is, one has to consider whether the event would have taken place even if the factor did not exist. And it also has to be causally deep. If event e would have happened without factor f, then this factor is not deep enough. Triggering factors, for instance, often do not have this depth. And by contrasting different factors with each other we may find that some are irrelevant (without causal depth).

Without the requirement of depth, explanations most often do not have practical significance. This requirement leads us to the nodal point against which we have to take measures to obtain changes. If we search for and find fundamental structural causes for unemployment, we can hopefully also take effective measures to remedy it.

Scientific theories (ought to) do more than just describe event-regularities. They also analyze and describe the mechanisms, structures, and processes that exist. They try to establish what relations exist between these different phenomena and the systematic forces that operate within the different realms of reality.

Explanations are important within science, since the choice between different theories hinges in large part on their explanatory powers. The most reasonable explanation for one theory’s having greater explanatory power than others is that the mechanisms, causal forces, structures, and processes it talks of, really do exist.

When studying the relation between different factors, a social scientist is usually prepared to admit the existence of a reciprocal interdependence between them. One is seldom prepared, on the other hand, to investigate whether this interdependence might follow from the existence of an underlying causal structure. This is really strange. The actual configurations of a river, for instance, depend of course on many factors. But one cannot escape the fact that it flows downhill and that this fundamental fact influences and regulates the other causal factors. Not to come to grips with the underlying causal power that the direction of the current constitutes can only be misleading and confusing.

All explanations of a phenomenon have preconditions that limit the number of alternative explanations. These preconditions significantly influence the ability of the different potential explanations to really explain anything. If we have a system where underlying structural factors control the functional relations between the parts of the system, a satisfactory explanation can never disregard this precondition. Explanations that take the parts (micro-explanations) as their point of departure may well describe how and through which mechanisms something takes place, but without the structure we cannot explain why it happens.

But could one not just say that different explanations – such as individual and structural – are different, without a need to grade them as better or worse? I think not. That would be too relativistic. For although we are dealing with two different kinds of explanations that answer totally different questions, I would say that the structural most often answers the more relevant questions. In social sciences we often search for explanations of events because we want to be able to avoid or change certain outcomes. Giving individualistic explanations does not make this possible, since they only state sufficient but not necessary conditions. Without knowing the latter we cannot prevent or avoid these undesirable social phenomena.

All kinds of explanations in empirical sciences are pragmatic. We cannot just say that one type is false and another is true. Explanations have a function to fulfill, and some are better and others worse at this. Even if individual explanations can show the existence of a pattern, the pattern as such does not constitute an explanation. We want to be able to explain the pattern per se, and for that we usually require a structural explanation. By studying statistics of the labor market, for example, we may establish the fact that everyone who is at the disposal of the labor market does not have a job. We might even notice a pattern, that people in rural areas, old people, and women are often jobless. But we cannot explain with these data why this is a fact and that it may even be that a certain amount of unemployment is a functional requisite for the market economy. The individualistic frame of explanation gives a false picture of what kind of causal relations are at hand, and a fortiori a false picture of what needs to be done to enable a change. For that, a structural explanation of the kind mentioned above is required.

  1. Paul Schächterle
    March 5, 2016 at 3:30 pm

    In any case, I would say that Neoclassical economics is clearly not positivistic at all.

  2. David Chester
    March 5, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    We are slowly finding a passage through to what can properly (and formally) represent our social system–the need to neglect individual properties and to use aggregates of idealized functions, of what various idealized agents (or entities) can manage to do. I have proposed a model that achieves this in Wikimedia Commons, macroeconomics as: DiagFuncMacroSyst.pdf but I fear this is too advanced for many of our less mature thinkers.

  3. March 5, 2016 at 8:47 pm

    Lawson’s fundamental methodological error and the failure of Heterodoxy
    Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Critical realism and scientific explanation’

    As far as the critique of orthodox economics is concerned, critical realism is correct. Yet, the fundamental error of critical realism is to assume that economics is about ‘how society works’. No! This is the subject matter of sociology. Economics is about ‘how the economy works.’ Society and economy are intertwined but must be separated analytically.

    Since Adam Smith, economics claims to be a science. Methodologically, it started as a mixture of sociology and political science: “The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.” (Mill, 1874, V.39)

    With respect to the subject matter there is no difference between Mill and Marx “My stand-point, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, …” (Marx, 1906, M.9)

    With Jevons/Walras/Menger the focus shifted to methodological individualism and economics became a mixture of dilettantish psychology, sociology, and political science. This approach has failed abysmally.

    Economics is NOT a science of individual/social/political behavior but of the behavior of the monetary economy. Accordingly, the correct definition of the subject matter is objective/structural/systemic: “Economics is the science which studies how the monetary economy works.”

    As a consequence, the overdue Copernican turn in economics consists in the methodological switch from behavior-centered bottom-up, i.e. subjective microfoundation, to structure-centered top-down, i.e. objective macrofoundation of the world economy. All Human-Nature issues are the subject matter of other disciplines (psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology/Darwinism, political science, philosophy, etcetera) and are taken in from these by way of multidisciplinary cooperation. To paraphrase J. S. Mill: ‘Economics as a system science presupposes all the physical and social sciences; it takes for granted all such of the truths of those sciences as are concerned with the working of the economic system.’ (cf. Mill 1874, V.29)

    Lars Syll summarizes Tony Lawson: “We have to maintain the Enlightenment tradition of thinking of reality as principally independent of our views of it and of the main task of science as studying the structure of this reality. Perhaps the most important contribution a researcher can make is reveal what this reality that is the object of science actually looks like.”

    Exactly so.

    Therefore, economics has to drop these axioms:
    HC1. There exist economic agents.
    HC2. Agents have preferences over outcomes.
    HC3. Agents independently optimize subject to constraints.
    HC4. Choices are made in interrelated markets.
    HC5. Agents have full relevant knowledge.
    HC6. Observable economic outcomes are coordinated, so they must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub, 1985, p. 109)

    Lawson’s critique fully applies to the theoretical superstructure that has been built upon HC1 (= methodological individualism) to HC6 (= closure).

    The proper object of economics is neither the individual nor society but the economy. So we have to move on and to first of all describe the structure of the monetary economy.

    The most elementary configuration of the (world-) economy consists of the household and the business sector which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm and is given by three objective structural axioms:
    A1. Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours L,
    A2. O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L,
    A3 C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X.

    These premises are certain, true, and primary, and therefore satisfy perfectly all methodological requirements (2014). Or, in the words of Lars Syll: “Science is made possible by the fact that there are structures that are durable and are independent of our knowledge or beliefs about them. There exists a reality beyond our theories and concepts of it. It is this independent reality that our theories in some way deal with.”

    Society has no durable structures but the monetary economy has and they are given in the most elementary case by A1 to A3. Economics is not a social science but a system science and it deals not with the defects of society but with systemic defects which produce what every superficial observer can see but not understand (2015).

    The fundamental flaw of Lawson’s methodology is that he defines economics as social science.

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). Objective Principles of Economics. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2418851: 1–19. URL http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2418851.
    Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2015). Major Defects of the Market Economy. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2624350: 1–40. URL http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2624350.
    Marx, K. (1906). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. I. The Process of Capitalist Production. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL
    Mill, J. S. (1874). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper To It. Library of Economics and Liberty. URL http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlUQP5.html#EssayV.OntheDefinitionofPoliticalEconomy.
    Weintraub, E. R. (1985). General Equilibrium Analysis. Cambridge, London, New York, NY, etc.: Cambridge University Press.

    • March 7, 2016 at 3:46 am

      The “pursuit of wealth” is one specific way of life that emerges in the creation of collective life. It is always collective. Even if carried out by a single or set of single persons its origins are always collective. By collective is meant relationships that involve people but also other players (the atmosphere, soil, plants, minerals, etc.). The study of this way of life – call it economics if you like – is likewise a way of living in the world created collectively (in relationships). Going on, money (monetary) is also created via this same relational process. If you wish to reveal the details of any of these – to understand them – then study the processes. The processes of creation. This is reality. The only reality humans have access to. Humans have characterized it in hundreds of ways. But baring direct insight from God its origins are as I just said, relational and materialistic. And to reveal it is to show how it has been created. Reality is a creative process. As is the study of reality. And if you want to “understand” those parts of reality called “money” and “economy” then study how, by which actors in which relationships, over what periods of time these are created and re-created. As for your claim that, “[s]ociety has no durable structures but the monetary economy has…” you miss the boat. This should be a question – are there durable collective arrangements (economic or otherwise) and how are they made durable? Don’t assume you know the answer before you ask the question.

    • March 8, 2016 at 8:49 am

      Dear Egmont

      I appreciate your persistence and hard thought, which are necessary if we are going to get anywhere with re-founding economics, i.e. changing the paradigm of economics, having and getting our heads round a “Copernican revolution” which enables us to “scrap the lot and starting again”. In this your latest offering it seems clear from your conclusion that you have not had the Copernican revolution that many people – including some but not all Critical Realists – have had in many other disciplines.

      I was first explicitly introduced to it via S R Ranganathan’s PMEST system of library classification, then via the difference between the Algol60 and Algol68 computer languages, and then via C E Shannon’s The Mathematical Theory of Communication, which abstracted both non-physical information and physical carriers of it from the same reality, and K E Boulding’s The Image, which distinguished iconic (structural) from symbolic (completely abstract) representation. It is almost present in the ancient concept of hierarchy applied to a Tree of Knowledge, but Ranganathan’s PMEST (an acronym for Personality, Matter, Energy, Space and Time) is subtly different in that the successive terms are ABSTRACTIONS from the previous abstractions, not SUB-DIVISIONS of divisions of what we can see of the whole, leaving the Tree of Knowledge applying at Ranganathan’s Personality level. So to your conclusion:

      “The fundamental flaw of Lawson’s methodology is that he defines economics as social science.”

      Here you are putting economics and social science on a level and saying one is not the other. Bhaskar’s Realist Theory of Science, by contrast, starts with reality existing at three levels (one could argue, Personality, Matter and Energy), so Lawson is seeing physics and social science as root sciences and economics as a social rather than a physical science. I personally want to go further and argue that the social is all about communication, which is not necessarily social just as the social is not necessarily economic. In these terms you seem to be saying in your second paragraph that economics involves only the existence of Shannon’s channels in Ranganathan’s Space Time. I am saying communication also involves meaningfully encoded and directed Energy having an effect, i.e. not just the possibilities of some definition of an economic system but the “working” of real economic systems in practice – as when the adequately waged flourish but the unwaged may be deprived even of the means of biological survival.

      • March 8, 2016 at 9:29 am

        I meant to add that this discussion had got me back to reading Australian anthropologist S F Nadel’s “The Theory of Social Structure”, 1957, London: Cohen and West. Nadel unfortunately died young within a few days of finishing this book, so it may be rare; but it does appear to have been re-issued as recently as 2004. I had been very satisfied with Nadel’s definition of theory as well as of social structure, but apparently hadn’t got as far as Chapter V, “Degrees of Abstraction”. This turned out to be very relevant to the present discussion, and in fact includes not only my diagram of fundamental communications channels but some very clear discussion of the interpretation of it. If you can find a copy, I would appreciate your reaction to it, Egmont, as a basis for discussion.

  4. March 5, 2016 at 11:44 pm

    As a critical realist I couldn’t see where Lars was coming from until I followed his link to Noahpinion. Noah Smith apparently doesn’t like Bhaskar’s style, and indeed I tolerate it not because I like it but because of the substance of what he is trying to say, which I had largely worked out for myself decades before encountering Bhaskar’s CR. I do, however, appreciate the teaching strategy based on people’s valuing most what has demanded most of them. Bhaskar is verbose because he tries to use different words for different meanings, and being obscure myself for want of encouragingly familiar labels for unfamiliar meanings, I’ve tried to follow or work from Bhaskar’s terminology. In light of Paul Schächterle’s comment below I am disappointed Lars has not started from where Bhaskar and I started, i.e. with David Hume creating a ‘positivist’ interpretation of Newton’s methods in physical science as a basis for an amoral social science. (Have you ever actually studied Hume’s Treatise, Lars)? At Smith’s blog, some of the responses were interesting, even where I don’t entirely agree with them, e.g. Jesse Eiseman at 12.04 AM and Tom Brown at 4.46 AM.

    Paul, the essence of ‘positivism’ is Hume’s “doubting Thomas” methodological position: I won’t believe in what I can’t see for myself. Thus Hume doesn’t believe in causes or Newtonian forces or even the reality of what he can see: reducing this to scientists agreeing on correlations of repeatable plots of points on graphs, with which he goes on to reduce morality to law and democracy to voting. In light of subsequent scientific discoveries like electric circuits, magnetic fields, subatomic structures, mass-energy equivalence, cosmic expansion etc, and observation of how scientists actually think, Bhaskar has taken the opposite methodological position, thereby leaving room for evolutionary explanations of persistence and change in terms of energetic motion in closed and open circuit structures. Neo-classical positivism predates the Logical Positivism label but post-dates Hume, who was the mentor of Adam Smith. It is Positive in the senses that the agreed theory is taken as more reliable than the evidence for it, and the only evidence accepted is correlation of quantitative counts or measurements as against direct observations in their contexts

    • Paul Schächterle
      March 6, 2016 at 5:19 am

      Quote: “It is Positive in the senses that the agreed theory is taken as more reliable than the evidence for it, and the only evidence accepted is correlation of quantitative counts or measurements as against direct observations in their contexts”

      I really don’t see how the belief in a theory without any empirical evidence for that theory can count as “positivistic”. Neoclassical theory is *anti*-positivistic. They just pull their theorems out of a hat. Show me one shred of empirical evidence that supports neoclassical theory.

      The neoclassical theorists like to *portrait* themselves as positivistic because that somehow gives them the air of a natural scientist. But that is just fake. It is PR. It is propaganda.

  5. March 6, 2016 at 1:21 am

    Wouldn’t it be more easy for dim bulbs like Noah Smith to focus on the scientist Hume was reacting to, i.e., Newton, and point out that Darwin has superseded Newton in every field that involves living creatures?

    Maybe it’s because I was a Phil major who loved Hume, but shouldn’t we leave the philosophers out of it?

    Because that answers the “why are they wrong?” Question: Easy Mr. Romer on one side and Cohrane on the other are both physics majors.

  6. March 6, 2016 at 6:28 am

    Most of what you say has merit. However, the situation is not quite so straight forward as you depict. You say, “Perhaps the most important contribution a researcher can make is reveal what this reality that is the object of science actually looks like.” You say this so glibly that it’s amusing. The “reality” of reality is created by the same processes that create the reality scientists say they are investigating. In simple terms, reality makes itself and at the same time explains what’s created.

    Then you say, “Rather, that task must be conceived as identifying the underlying structure and forces that produce the observed events.” But these, as you call them, structure and forces are not fixed. They are processional. They can and do change and become something different. To coin a term, they are always “becoming.” Or if you prefer, “performing.” It’s the performing we see. And the way they become is the result of the relationships in which they are involved. And these relationships in turn perform and change.

    So if you want to understand the reality that’s been created via relationships you need to examine the processes of creation and the different actors involved. And contrary to what you say this applies equally to the social and physical sciences. Astronomers create the moon through varied and repeated observations (a process) that gathers experiences from native observations, from observatories, from laboratories, from historical studies, etc.to create the moon. Psychologists gather experiences from native observations, laboratories, clinical events, historical records, etc. and create the psychopath. But as I’ve already pointed out both the moon and psychopaths can and do fight back. They get involved in new relationships and throw kinks into what astronomers and psychologists think they know. A passing asteroid changes the moon’s surface temperature and gravity. Psychopaths fall in love and stop being psychopathological. And this goes without saying, I hope — non-scientists also create the moon and psychopaths. And the moon and psychopaths are active participants in all these creative processes.

    Just a “bit” more complex.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.