Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (2):265-290 (2010)
|Abstract||This article assesses two major conceptual arguments against theories of choice.The first argument concerns the circularity of belief-desire psychology, on which decision theory is based. The second argument concerns the normativity arising from the concept of rationality. Each argument is evaluated against experimental practice in economics and psychology, and it is concluded that both arguments fail to establish their skeptical conclusion that there can be no science of intentional human actions|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Andrew D. Cling (2002). Justification-Affording Circular Arguments. Philosophical Studies 111 (3):251 - 275.
C. S. I. Jenkins (2011). Reflective Knowledge and Epistemic Circularity. Philosophical Papers 40 (3):305-325.
Daniel S. Levine (2001). In Partial Defense of Softness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):421-422.
Chase Wrenn (2004). Hypothetical and Categorical Epistemic Normativity. Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (2):273-290.
Kenneth R. Westphal (1987). Sextus Empiricus Contra René Descartes. Philosophy Research Archives 13:91-128.
Krist Vaesen (2006). How Norms in Technology Ought to Be Interpreted. Techne 10 (1):117-133.
Harold Kincaid & Don Ross (eds.) (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics. Oxford University Press.
Claire Horisk (2008). Truth, Meaning, and Circularity. Philosophical Studies 137 (2):269 - 300.
Added to index2010-02-17
Total downloads29 ( #48,035 of 722,750 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?