ABSTRACT
When I started this inquiry into the relation between idealizing theories on the one hand and factualized models on the other hand, I expected that a clarification of the structure of idealizing theories would provide a direct solution to another problem, the question of why the capital theory debate was felt to be so confusing. But both problems turned out to be more complex than I expected. This forced me to introduce a number of distinctions that clarified their structure. It was thus that I hit upon the distinction between global and local levels of analysis, the distinction between internally and externally generated problems, and the heuristic role of mathematics. Now that I have come to the end, I will summarize some of the most striking
historical features of the development of the debate, and examine whether the methodological apparatus that I have gradually developed enablesme to offer some explanations for them. One answer turns out to be the solution to my original problem. This solution can easily be mistaken for a defence of methodological pluralism. It will be argued that such a conclusion would not be justified.
