David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophy 103 (5):239-263 (2006)
The answer in a nutshell is: Yes, five years ago, but nobody has noticed. Nobody noticed because the majority of social scientists subscribe to one of the following views: (1) the ‘anomalous’ behaviour observed in standard prisoner’s dilemma or ultimatum game experiments has refuted standard game theory a long time ago; (2) game theory is flexible enough to accommodate any observed choices by ‘refining’ players’ preferences; or (3) it is just a piece of pure mathematics (a tautology). None of these views is correct. This paper defends the view that GT as commonly understood is not a tautology, that it suffers from important (albeit very recently discovered) empirical anomalies, and that it is not flexible enough to accommodate all the anomalies in its theoretical framework. It also discusses the experiments that finally refuted game theory, and concludes trying to explain why it took so long for experimental game theorists to design experiments that could adequately test the theory.
|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
Raul Hakli, Kaarlo Miller & Raimo Tuomela (2010). Two Kinds of We-Reasoning. Economics and Philosophy 26 (03):291-320.
Francesco Guala (2013). The Normativity of Lewis Conventions. Synthese 190 (15):3107-3122.
Till Grüne‐Yanoff & Paul Schweinzer (2008). The Roles of Stories in Applying Game Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 15 (2):131-146.
Francesco Guala (2007). The Philosophy of Social Science: Metaphysical and Empirical. Philosophy Compass 2 (6):954-980.
Michiru Nagatsu (2013). The Limits of Unification for Theory Appraisal: A Case of Economics and Psychology. Synthese 190 (2):2267-2289.
Similar books and articles
Herbert Gintis (2001). The Contribution of Game Theory to Experimental Design in the Behavioral Sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):411-412.
Daniel M. Hausman (2005). 'Testing' Game Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2):211-223.
Andrew M. Colman (2007). Love is Not Enough: Other-Regarding Preferences Cannot Explain Payoff Dominance in Game Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (1):22-23.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2008). Reducible and Nonsensical Uses of Game Theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 38 (2):247-266.
Giacomo Bonanno (2002). Modal Logic and Game Theory: Two Alternative Approaches. Risk Decision and Policy 7:309-324.
Mark Colyvan (2008). Relative Expectation Theory. Journal of Philosophy 105 (1):37-44.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2005). Game Theory in Philosophy. Topoi 24 (2):197-208.
Benoit Hardy-Vallée & Paul Thagard (2008). How to Play the Ultimatum Game: An Engineering Approach to Metanormativity. Philosophical Psychology 21 (2):173 – 192.
Francesco Guala (2008). Paradigmatic Experiments: The Ultimatum Game From Testing to Measurement Device. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):658-669.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads57 ( #59,957 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #74,830 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?