----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Scott Cullen asked: 
 
<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.
 
 
My point about theoretical terms ('utility' being a possible instatiation of such a type)
was not that non-theoretical terms are touchable, tangible or otherwise straightfowardly
visible. The trouble with theoretical terms is that is is a non-dochotomous, viz a
gradual, notion. Terms are always relatively theoretical, if they are at all. Terms
referring to black holes are pretty theoretical, and there may be good reasons to beleve
they make part of the ontic furniture of the world. Planets or moons are relatively less
theoretical, because they are visible with the help of telescopes, but not by the bare
eye. Telescopes, then, are constructs that were made possible by other theories, so one
seems to need theories to see: auxiliary theories. The discussion started, I believe, with
Galileo's telescope.
 
If utility is relatively theoretical term, it is theoretical relative to something. The
term may be theoretical with regard to the theory of utitlity itself, in the sense that
this very theory is needed to measure it,
or to see it, or whatever. it may be non-theoretical with regard to another theory.
Philosophers of science sometimes speak of terms being 'T-theoretical', the 'T' referring
to the very theory in which the term figures. The circularity involved here is not
necessarily vicious. (Something which should be noted in the other discussion: that
something is circular need not always imply problems.) As long as there are other theories
that help explain the T-theorical term: no problem. The model can be refined by
distinguishing T-laden hypotheses and T-theoretical hypotheses, but that, I believe, leads
us too far astray from the original discussion. This just aims to give the gist of how one
could treat the problem of theoreticality and vsibility.
 
 
Furthermore Bill Williams says: 
<The definition in physics of forces such as gravity seem to me to be similar to the
definition of utility in economics.  But, the Newtonian system works rather well. While
the principle of maximization in economics -- what ever it is that is being maximized --
generates some persistent anomalies-- such as the Giffen paradox
 
It seems to me that there are great differences between gravity and utility. The former is
easily measurable. Possibly, this is not just due to the fact that the Newtonian system
works rather well and the economic not; it may be due to an ontological difference: maybe
gravity exists and utility does not. One could be a theoretical realist for the physical
sciences and a theoretical instrumentalist for the social sciences.
 
 
Finally, as to the discussion about teleological explanations in biology, these do not
come to be in fashion recently, but are as old as Darwin's publications. This is one
reason to not classify biology too easily under the heading of the natural sciences.You
can classify by domain of research, but also by research style, and often more than one
style is in fashion at th same time. An example of this is precisely biology. Note, by the
way, that many efforts have been done (some successful) to reconstruct teleological (or
better: functional) explanations as causal.
 
 
Menno Rol 
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]