Measuring Utility without ‘externalist fallacies’: a response to Alexandrova and Beck, Boumans, and Gilboa

Ivan Moscati

Journal of Economic Methodology, 2019, vol. 26, issue 4, 393-400

Abstract: This is a response to the critical points made by Alexandrova, Beck, Boumans, and Gilboa in their reviews of my book Measuring Utility. A common thread in the reviewers’ comments is that my history of utility measurement is too internalist, that is, I failed to account for some external factors that they contend influenced the history of utility measurement. In response, I make two main points: (1) at the general level of historiographical methodology, I argue against what I call the ‘externalist fallacy’ in the historiography of science and contend that, in principle, internalist narratives can provide good explanations of the development of a science; (2) with respect to the history of utility measurement reconstructed in the book, I argue that the available historical evidence indicates that the history of utility measurement was mostly determined by internal factors.

Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1350178X.2019.1647605 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:26:y:2019:i:4:p:393-400

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RJEC20

DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2019.1647605

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Economic Methodology is currently edited by John Davis and D Wade Hands

More articles in Journal of Economic Methodology from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().