Shackle versus Savage: non-probabilistic alternatives to subjective probability theory in the 1950s
G.L.S Shackle’s rejection of the probability tradition stemming from Knight's definition of uncertainty was a crucial episode in the development of modern decision theory. A set of methodological statements characterizing Shackle’s stance, abandoned for long, especially after Savage’s Foundations, have been re-discovered and are at the basis of current non-expected utility theories, in particular of the non-additive probability approach to decision making. This paper examines the discussion between Shackle and his critics in the 1950s. Drawing on Shackle’s papers housed at Cambridge University Library as well as on printed matter, we show that some critics correctly understood two aspects of Shackle’s theory which are of the utmost importance in our view: the non-additive character of the theory and the possibility of interpreting Shackle’s ascendancy functions as a specific distortion of the weighting function of the decision maker. It is argued that Shackle neither completely understood criticisms nor appropriately developed suggestions put forward by scholars like Kenneth Arrow, Ward Edwards, Nicholas Georgescu- Roegen. Had he succeeded in doing so, we contend, his theory might have been a more satisfactory alternative to Savage’s theory than it actually was.
|Date of creation:||May 2005|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Piazza S.Francesco,7 - 53100 Siena|
Web page: http://www.deps.unisi.it/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:usi:wpaper:452. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fabrizio Becatti)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.