Re: On Sociology

["Alan G. Isaac" <AISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jamie, I'm sure it was clear from my question that we agree that
utility theory has nothing to say about preference formation.
It also has many other shortcomings. My question is: why should
we view evident shortcomings as _limiting_ inquiry rather than
as _stimulating_ inquiry?

A second question was implicit. Utility theory at its most abstract
is just an expression of the folk psychological concept that action
is the manifestation of desires and beliefs. In this sense, one
could argue that its usefulness should be no more questionable than
usefulness of this folk psychological concept. Rephrasing: wouldn't
you agree that the importance of utility theory's evident
limitations varies with the domain of application of the theory?

--Alan G. Isaac


On Fri, 11 Nov 1994 00:06:32 -0700 James K. Galbraith said:
>Replying to Alan Isaac:
>
>How does the structure of utility theory limit inquiry? Principally, by
>ruling out coherent discussion of preference formation and preference
>change. You can discuss these things of course -- in a formal sense you can
>discuss anything in any language -- but that is not the same thing as saying
>that you can construct a coherent model or theory of these life-processes.
>Utility theory quite powerfully focusses attention on the choice and away
>from the predilection. That is a powerful influence, and clearly a
>distortion. Jamie.
>****
>
>James Galbraith
>The University of Texas at Austin
>LPGC403@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>fax (512) 471-1835