----------------- 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]