IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eujhet/v25y2018i6p1387-1419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationality under uncertainty: classic and current criticisms of the Bayesian viewpoint

Author

Listed:
  • Carlo Zappia

Abstract

At least since Leonard Savage’s extension of von Neumann and Morgenstern’s expected utility, rational choice theory has been interpreted as a theory prescribing what individuals should do in any decision context, ranging from certainty to risk and uncertainty. After decades this received view, usually termed Bayesian, has been criticized for its normative content. This paper compares the current critique of the notion of Bayesian rationality, proposed by Itzhak Gilboa, with Daniel Ellsberg’s classic critique of Savage’s understanding of rationality. The paper argues that Ellsberg’s classic analysis of Savage’s theory totally anticipated today’s criticism.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlo Zappia, 2018. "Rationality under uncertainty: classic and current criticisms of the Bayesian viewpoint," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1387-1419, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:eujhet:v:25:y:2018:i:6:p:1387-1419
    DOI: 10.1080/09672567.2018.1523210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09672567.2018.1523210
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09672567.2018.1523210?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:eujhet:v:25:y:2018:i:6:p:1387-1419. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/REJH20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.