----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Menno Rol, in supporting Bill Wilson's observations doubting that there is direct evidence
of utility, raises interesting questions.  He observes ""Utility" is a theoretical term,
which refers to some invisible attribute.
So the question is in what sense it can be observed. Does the term refer to some property
of the behaviour of an actor in models only, or do ordinary people also perceive their
utility? Does utility make up part of the ontic furniture of the economic world?"
 
First I must ask, what constitutes direct evidence?  If it must be physically measurable
or touchable then I would also need to ask on what base the entire range of social
sciences stand. I might suggest they stand on observations of or deductions about
behavior.  Historians can look to the written record of laws, treaties, contracts,
memoirs, etc. and conclude that an actor bought a property or invaded a country or
expereinced need or satisfaction thereof becasue they said so.  Pre-historians
(anthroploigsts and archaeologists) look at, say, grave goods and deduce a society or an
individual placed value in the afterlife (which were and are both invisible).  Were or are
those beliefs or actions touchable.  Touchable or not were they real?
 
Is utility a theoretical term?  Would it be theoretical merely becasue it is invisible?
Would its existence be demonstarble by other means than sight or touch?
 
Currency seems to have real value, at least from time to time.  In ancient times precious
metals and gems, stone rings or salt were currency and they were tangible touchable goods.
Such goods may or may not have been directly usable but they were used as currency becuase
they were readily exchangable for other goods.  But was the value or faith in
exchangability touchable? And was the value constant?  Is the value of gold constant day
to day even today?  In more modern times we have paper currency which is backed by the
"full faith and credit" of the issuer.  Is the full faith and credit visible or touchable?
Is it real?
 
Go back in social evolution to times of barter.  Was the direct exchange of a warm fur for
an oil-tight clay jar evidence of value and utility of those goods?
 
Are economies real?  Can we see or touch demand? Or excahnge?  We can see a handsake or a
signature or smile as a driver sits in a newly purchased automoble.  Are they sufficient
evidence of value, utility, satisfaction or other invisible concepts?
 
Scott Cullen 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]