Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T04:19:10.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationality: A Third Dimension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Frederic Schick
Frederic Schick
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I want in this paper to do two things. First, I want to respond to some studies that argue that people are often not rational: that people regularly and systematically depart from rationality. The conclusion itself does not worry me. I pressed for the same in a recent book (Schick, 1984). But the arguments seem to me wrong, and wrong in an interesting way. There may be something to be learned from seeing how and why they fail.

Information

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , April 1987, pp. 49 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allais, Maurice. 1953. “Le Comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école américaine.” Econometrica 21:503–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1982. “Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics.” Economic Inquiry 20:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1983. Sour Grapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, Alan, and Harper, William L. 1978. “Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility.” In Foundations and Applications of Decision Theory, Vol. 1., edited by Hooker, C.A., Leach, J.J., and McClennen, E.F., pp. 125–62. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1955. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47:263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211 (30 Jan.): 453–58.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1982. “On the Study of Statistical Intuitions.” Cognition 11:123–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Isaac. 1982. “A Note on Newcombmania.” Journal of Philosophy 79:337–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1969. “Newcomb's Problem and Two Principles of Choice.” In Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel, edited by Rescher, Nicholas et al. , pp. 114–46. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiffa, Howard. 1968. Decision Analysis. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1969. Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, Frederic. 1982. “Under Which Descriptions?” In Utilitarianism and Beyond, edited by Sen, Amartya and Williams, Bernard, pp. 251–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, Frederic. 1984. Having Reasons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos. 1974. “Who Accepts Savage's Axiom?” Behavioral Science 19:368–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos. 1975. “A Critique of Expected Utility Theory: Descriptive and Normative Considerations.” Erkenntnis 9:163–73.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar