Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:43 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------- 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]
|
|
|