IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v16y2000i01p99-115_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revealed preference, belief, and game theory

Author

Listed:
  • Hausman, Daniel M.

Abstract

The notion of ‘revealed preference’ is unclear and should be abandoned. Defenders of the theory of revealed preference have misinterpreted legitimate concerns about the testability of economics as the demand that economists eschew reference to (unobservable) subjective states. As attempts to apply revealed-preference theory to game theory illustrate with particular vividness, this demand is mistaken.

Suggested Citation

  • Hausman, Daniel M., 2000. "Revealed preference, belief, and game theory," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 99-115, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:16:y:2000:i:01:p:99-115_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267100000158/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-01249632 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Philippe Mongin, 2006. "Value Judgments and Value Neutrality in Economics," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(290), pages 257-286, May.
    3. Ennio Bilancini, 2011. "On the rationalizability of observed consumers’ choices when preferences depend on budget sets and (potentially) on anything else," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 275-286, April.
    4. Gisele Chevalier & Richard Hudson, 2001. "The use of intentional language in scientific articles in finance," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 203-228.
    5. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    6. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2016. "Mentalism Versus Behaviourism In Economics: A Philosophy-Of-Science Perspective," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 249-281, July.
    7. Luca Zarri, 2007. "Happiness, Morality and Game Theory," Chapters, in: Luigino Bruni & Pier Luigi Porta (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Happiness, chapter 16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Gregory J. Robson, 2023. "How to Object to the Profit System (and How Not To)," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(2), pages 205-219, November.
    9. Jörg Stoye, 2011. "Statistical decisions under ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 129-148, February.
    10. Carvajal, Andres, 2004. "Testable restrictions on the equilibrium manifold under random preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1-2), pages 121-143, February.
    11. Roberto Fumagalli, 2021. "Rationality, preference satisfaction and anomalous intentions: why rational choice theory is not self-defeating," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 337-356, October.
    12. Nicola Maaser, 2010. "Hartmut Kliemt: Philosophy and economics I. Methods and models," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 35(2), pages 345-350, July.
    13. James Johnson, 2010. "What Rationality Assumption? Or, How ‘Positive Political Theory’ Rests on a Mistake," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 282-299, March.
    14. Saima Mahmood & Asad Zaman, 2010. "Monetary and Non-monetary Gift Exchange," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 49(4), pages 719-740.
    15. David Lipka, 2014. "Do economists need virtues?," ICER Working Papers 06-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    16. Fumagalli, Roberto, 2021. "Rationality, preference satisfaction and anomalous intentions: why rational choice theory is not self-defeating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112446, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Smeulders, Bart & Crama, Yves & Spieksma, Frits C.R., 2019. "Revealed preference theory: An algorithmic outlook," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 803-815.
    18. Ganghof, Steffen & Manow, Philip, 2005. "Mechanismen der Politik: Strategische Interaktion im deutschen Regierungssystem," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 54, number 54.
    19. João V. Ferreira, 2016. "The Tree that Hides the Forest: A Note on Revealed Preference," Working Papers halshs-01386451, HAL.

    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:cup:ecnphi:v:16:y:2000:i:01:p:99-115_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/eap .

    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.