Overmathematisation in game theory: pitting the Nash Equilibrium Refinement Programme against the Epistemic Programme
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (3):290-300 (2009)
The paper argues that the Nash Equilibrium Refinement Programme in game theory was less successful than its competitor, the Epistemic Programme (Interactive Epistemology). The prime criterion of success is the extent to which the programmes were able to reach the key objective guiding non-cooperative game theory for much of the 20th century, namely, to develop a complete characterisation of the strategic rationality of economic agents in the form of the ultimate game theoretic solution concept for any normal form and extensive game. The paper explains this in terms of unjustified degrees of mathematisation in the Nash Equilibrium Refinement Programme. While this programme's mathematical models were often inspired by purely mathematical concerns rather than the economic phenomena they were intended to be mathematical models of, the Epistemic Programme's mathematical models were developed with a keen eye to the role beliefs and desires play in strategic interaction between rational economic agents playing games; that is, their Interactive Epistemology. The Epistemic Programme succeeded in developing mathematical models formalising aspects of strategic interaction that remained implicit in the Nash Equilibrium Refinement Programme due to an unjustified degree of mathematisation. As a result, the Epistemic Programme is more successful in game theory .
|Keywords||nash equilibrium refinement epistemic programme interactive epistemology game theory rationality economics mathematical modelling mathematisation|
|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
Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors & David Makinson (1985). On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (2):510-530.
Robert Stalnaker (1996). Knowledge, Belief and Counterfactual Reasoning in Games. Economics and Philosophy 12 (2):133.
Ken Binmore (1987). Modeling Rational Players: Part I. Economics and Philosophy 3 (2):179.
John von Neumann & Oskar Morgenstern (1945). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Journal of Philosophy 42 (20):550-554.
Francesco Guala (2006). Has Game Theory Been Refuted? Journal of Philosophy 103 (5):239-263.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Giacomo Bonanno & Klaus Nehring (1998). On Stalnaker's Notion of Strong Rationalizability and Nash Equilibrium in Perfect Information Games. Theory and Decision 45 (3):291-295.
Andrew M. Colman & Michael Bacharach (1997). Payoff Dominance and the Stackelberg Heuristic. Theory and Decision 43 (1):1-19.
Mathias Risse (2000). What is Rational About Nash Equilibria? Synthese 124 (3):361 - 384.
Robert C. Robinson (2006). Bounded Epistemology. Ssrn Elibrary.
Cristina Bicchieri (1993). Counterfactuals, Belief Changes, and Equilibrium Refinements. Philosophical Topics 21 (1):21-52.
Boudewijn De Bruin (2005). Game Theory in Philosophy. Topoi 24 (2):197-208.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2005). Game Theory in Philosophy. Topoi 24 (2):197-208.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2008). Reducible and Nonsensical Uses of Game Theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 38 (2):247-266.
Added to index2009-01-29
Total downloads48 ( #88,284 of 1,907,886 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #339,337 of 1,907,886 )
How can I increase my downloads?