Whitehead refutes Becker-Stigler

"We habitually observe by the method of difference. Sometimes we see an elephant, and sometimes we do not. The result is that an elephant, when present, is noticed." -- Process and Reality, p. 7

Just so. If preferences were not something that changed, we would not even have a word for them.

4 comments:

  1. The totally obvious that no one seems to have noticed are the best comments!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replace "preferences" by "likes". Then you have
    "If likes were not something that changed, we would not even have a word for them". This is not true. We also have dislikes, and the method of difference explains why we have both concepts, and would continue to explain why we have both concepts in a world where likes and dislikes never change.
    Similarly with preferences. They are sufficiently different from things we like less, that the concept is natural , leading us to invent a handy word for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul, you are not understanding the Becker-Stigler paper I am targeting. You are, in fact, with this comment, siding with me *against* Becker-Stigler, when you think you are disagreeing with me!

      "They are sufficiently different from things we like less..."

      Becker-Stigler deny this: it is all about consumption capital for them.

      Delete
  3. That's ok, Gene, I was just going on the small snippet in your post

    ReplyDelete