Abstract

The version of methodological individualism (MI) outlined by Karl Popper and more specifically by John Watkins after World War II has been very influential. But while Watkins supported a defense of MI paired with a criticism of “holism”, the recent post-Watkinsian analytical philosophers, on the contrary, strongly criticize MI. They painstakingly reconstruct arguments, but do not take actual debates within the social sciences into account very much. Although, at first sight, these artificial reconstructions may seem rather sterile, one can take advantage of them to discover whether or not typical misunderstandings widespread within this tradition originate in equivocations in the works of the leading figures of MI themselves. The definition of MI formulated in 1909 by Joseph A. Schumpeter is taken as a cornerstone.