----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Pat Gunning apparently wrote: 
> Bill Williams asks for evidence that individuals perceive 
> utility and he doubts that it can be provided. It seems to 
> me that acceptance of the assumption that individuals 
> perceive utility is a prerequisite for entry in the club 
> of economists. 
 
This is wrong, I think. (See below.)  It also plays a bit with words.  The 
utility of an object may be perceived(i.e., it is perceived to be useful), 
a notion that I think of as closer to original use of the term in 
economics. (?) I suspect this is Pat's usage, but I'm not sure.  I think it 
should be his usage in any case, since he wants to refer to something that 
"motivates" choice.  I.e., something ex ante. Modern economists, in 
contrast, tend to use 'utility' to denote some psychological experience 
that is crudely conceptualized as the "net" pleasures and pains resulting 
from a course of action.  If this is ex post (i.e., is reference to the 
actual experience) it cannot motivate anything.  Of course expectations of 
such experiences can be offered in place as motivator.  The utility of this 
conceptualization has always been unclear, and so we end up in these 
discussions ... 
 
 
> I take it (1) that the main interest of economics is the 
> market economy and (2) that economists since Adam Smith 
> (and before of course) have described it by referring to 
> the choices of actors. 
 
As Veblen pointed out, this teleological bent puts social science at odds 
with natural science, where the effort to eradicate teleological 
explanation as anything other than heuristic has been part and parcel of 
explanatory success. Naturally some people within the club of economists 
will hope for an emulation of natural science in this area. (That is not my 
view, which hews toward Donald Davidson.) 
 
 
> Since the marginal utility revolution of the late 19th 
> century, they have used the word "utility" to refer to 
> that which motivates the choice of one alternative over 
> another. 
 
Of course the entire behaviorist movement in economics, however abortive 
one may judge it (as I do), was bent on discarding reference to utility as 
an explanatory strategy. Still we welcome Samuelson, Houthakker, etc into 
the "club of economists". 
 
Alan Isaac 
 
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]