David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):686-687 (2000)
The rationality debate centers on the meaning of deviations of decision makers' responses from the predictions/prescriptions of normative models. But for the debate to have significance, the meaning and functions of normative analysis must be clear. Presently, they are not, and the debate's persistence owes much to conceptual blur. An attempt is made here to clarify the concept of normative analysis.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Keith E. Stanovich & Richard F. West (2000). Advancing the Rationality Debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):701-717.
Joshua Gert (2005). A Functional Role Analysis of Reasons. Philosophical Studies 124 (3):353 - 378.
David Plunkett (2011). Expressivism, Representation, and the Nature of Conceptual Analysis. Philosophical Studies 156 (1):15-31.
Francesco Guala (2000). The Logic of Normative Falsification: Rationality and Experiments in Decision Theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 7 (1):59-93.
P. P. M. Harteloh (2003). The Meaning of Quality in Health Care: A Conceptual Analysis. Health Care Analysis 11 (3):259-267.
Harold I. Brown (1986). Sellars, Concepts, and Conceptual Change. Synthese 68 (August):275-307.
Karen Neander (1991). Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst's Defense. Philosophy of Science 58 (2):168-184.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #195,393 of 1,004,658 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,617 of 1,004,658 )
How can I increase my downloads?