David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 65 (1):76-102 (1998)
Game theoretic explanations of the evolution of human behavior have become increasingly widespread. At their best, they allow us to abstract from misleading particulars in order to better recognize and appreciate broad patterns in the phenomena of human social life. We discuss this explanatory strategy, contrasting it with the particularist methodology of contemporary evolutionary psychology. We introduce some guidelines for the assessment of evolutionary game theoretic explanations of human behavior: such explanations should be representative, robust, and flexible. Distinguishing these features sharply can help to clarify the import and accuracy of game theorists' claims about the robustness and stability of their explanatory schemes. Our central example is the work of Brian Skyrms, who offers a game theoretic account of the evolution of our sense of justice. Modeling the same Nash game as Skyrms, we show that, while Skyrms' account is robust with respect to certain kinds of variation, it fares less well in other respects
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Armin W. Schulz (2010). It Takes Two: Sexual Strategies and Game Theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 41 (1):41-49.
Simon M. Huttegger (2007). Robustness in Signaling Games. Philosophy of Science 74 (5):839-847.
Similar books and articles
B. Skyrms & K. J. S. Zollman (2010). Evolutionary Considerations in the Framing of Social Norms. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 9 (3):265-273.
Kevin J. S. Zollman (2005). Talking to Neighbors: The Evolution of Regional Meaning. Philosophy of Science 72 (1):69-85.
Neil Tennant (2001). Game Theory and Conventiont. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 6 (1):3-19.
William D. Casebeer & James E. Parco (2003). To Have and to Eat Cake: The Biscriptive Role of Game-Theoretic Explanations of Human Choice Behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):159-160.
J. McKenzie Alexander (2003). Random Boolean Networks and Evolutionary Game Theory. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1289-1304.
Zachary Ernst (2001). Explaining the Social Contract. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (1):1-24.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2009). On the Narrow Epistemology of Game Theoretic Agents. In Ondrej Majer, Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen & Tero Tulenheimo (eds.), Games: Unifying Logic, Language, and Philosophy. Springer.
Don Ross (2005). Distinctive Human Social Motivations in a Game-Theoretic Framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (5):715-716.
J. McKenzie Alexander (2000). Evolutionary Explanations of Distributive Justice. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):490-516.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #49,391 of 1,099,918 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #17,184 of 1,099,918 )
How can I increase my downloads?