Re: Utility Maximisation

[GBRansom@xxxxxxx by emout20.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) Mon, 6 Oct 1997 04:43:59 -0400 (EDT)]

In a message dated 97-10-02 17:11:44 EDT, Alan writes:

<< These comments show two things.
 i. You do not appear to understand the modern formulation
 of utility theory.
 That is, you draw a parallel between utility and vitalism that
 shows you hold to a prewar characterization of utility.>>

I don't hold this characterization, and I know more than just the
modern formulation of utility theory, I know a good deal of it origins
and development.  It is the typical illegitimate use implied in the
explanatory tasks, talk, and strategies of economists which
fails to cohere with the logic of the modern formulation of utility
theory.  A bit of misdirection in the act of speaking faith to the logic
of the modern fomulation takes place, and the economist is off
and running.  For one case study, I might recommend:

Stanley Wong, _The Foundation of Paul Samuelson's Revealed
Preference Theory_ London:  Routledge, 1978.


See also, Alexander Rosenberg, _Microeconomics_ Chicago:
U. of Chicago Press, 1992.

<< Reread my posts.
 ii. You are committed to a different methodology
 and are repelled by elements of pragmatism or
 instrumentalism in mine. >>

No, I identify a genuine and important empirical pattern in our
experience and I provide a good explanation for it.  Your own problem is
a different one, not as important, and not very succefully handled
by economists or 'utility theory'.  The issue is that I have a robust
empirical
problem and a good causal explanation for it.  It is not so clear that
the 'mainstream' has either -- it is not just my own view is that they do not

have a coherent or successful account of either of these.


Greg Ransom
Dept. of Philosophy
UC-Riverside
gbransom@xxxxxxx
http://members.aol.com/gregransom/ransom.htm