Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Equating methodological individualism with rational choice theory fails to distinguish two distinct methodological issues that Weber recognized as separate.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Weber held two distinct methodological commitments: (1) providing explanations at an action-theoretic level, and (2) choosing a specific model of rational action (ideal type) for use at that level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rational choice theory is only one possible model of rational action that can be used within a methodological individualist framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Methodological individualism is a commitment to action-theoretic explanation, not a commitment to any particular model of rational action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.