IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v8y2001i2p313-337.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationality as optimal choice versus rationality as valid inference

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Viskovatoff

Abstract

While economics distinguishes itself from the other social sciences by its treatment of human action as rational, its notion of rationality is actually based on a profound skepticism about people's ability to reason. This notion goes back to Hume, according to whom 'Reason is the slave of the passions'. Hume's belief that people cannot determine their preferences by reasoning led to the notion of rationality based on representation: people are rational when they are able to represent their preferences vividly, accurately gauging their intensity. Starting with Kant, philosophy moved to an understanding of rationality as valid inference; cognitive psychologists similarly speak of the superiority of the 'reason-based' model of choice over the economic 'value-based' one. Economics stayed with Hume's conception because the latter enabled the mathematical expression of a relation between scarcities. If it is to produce empirically adequate theories however, economics must follow the examples of philosophy and psychology.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Viskovatoff, 2001. "Rationality as optimal choice versus rationality as valid inference," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 313-337.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:8:y:2001:i:2:p:313-337
    DOI: 10.1080/13501780110047336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13501780110047336
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13501780110047336?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Machina, Mark J, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Geoffrey M. Hodgson, 1998. "The Approach of Institutional Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 166-192, March.
    4. Arthur, W Brian, 1991. "Designing Economic Agents that Act Like Human Agents: A Behavioral Approach to Bounded Rationality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 353-359, May.
    5. Tony Lawson, 1997. "Situated rationality," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 101-125.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    7. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jorge Bateira, 2005. "Innovation Systems - Do they exist? Exploring Luhmanns thinking," ERSA conference papers ersa05p374, European Regional Science Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Delli Gatti,Domenico & Fagiolo,Giorgio & Gallegati,Mauro & Richiardi,Matteo & Russo,Alberto (ed.), 2018. "Agent-Based Models in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781108400046, September.
    2. Rania HENTATI & Jean-Luc PRIGENT, 2010. "Structured Portfolio Analysis under SharpeOmega Ratio," EcoMod2010 259600073, EcoMod.
    3. William C. McDaniel & Francis Sistrunk, 1991. "Management Dilemmas and Decisions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 21-42, March.
    4. André Lapidus, 2000. "La rationalité du choix passionnel : En quête de l'héritage de David Hume," Post-Print hal-00343939, HAL.
    5. Elie Appelbaum, 2000. "Estimating the firm's demand and supply functions under uncertainty without expected utility," Working Papers 2000_5, York University, Department of Economics.
    6. Eike B. Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2008. "The Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives: An experimental investigation of risky choices," FEMM Working Papers 08028, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    7. Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2002. "Experimental test of the prospect theory value function: A stochastic dominance approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1058-1081, November.
    8. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    9. Han Bleichrodt & Peter P. Wakker, 2015. "Regret Theory: A Bold Alternative to the Alternatives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 493-532, March.
    10. Gregory B. Pollock & Keith A. Lewis, 1993. "Gambling in a Malthusian Universe," Rationality and Society, , vol. 5(1), pages 85-106, January.
    11. Marc Willinger, 1990. "La rénovation des fondements de l'utilité et du risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 41(1), pages 5-48.
    12. Hela Maafi, 2011. "Preference Reversals Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 2054-2066, November.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:528-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Robert Lapson, 1992. "Expected Value," Discussion Papers 1037, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    15. Geiger, Gebhard, 2002. "On the statistical foundations of non-linear utility theory: The case of status quo-dependent preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 136(2), pages 449-465, January.
    16. Geiger, Gebhard, 2008. "An axiomatic account of status quo-dependent non-expected utility: Pragmatic constraints on rational choice under risk," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 116-142, March.
    17. Uri Gneezy & John A. List & George Wu, 2006. "The Uncertainty Effect: When a Risky Prospect is Valued Less than its Worst Possible Outcome," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1283-1309.
    18. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    19. Hannu Nurmi, 1993. "Problems in the Theory of Institutional Design," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 5(4), pages 523-540, October.
    20. Miljkovic, Dragan, 2005. "Rational choice and irrational individuals or simply an irrational theory: A critical review of the hypothesis of perfect rationality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 621-634, October.
    21. Michael H. Birnbaum & Kathleen Johnson & Jay-Lee Longbottom, 2008. "Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory with graphical displays of probability," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 528-546, October.

    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:jecmet:v:8:y:2001:i:2:p:313-337. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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/RJEC20 .

    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.