The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste
Argumentation 16 (4):473-503 (2002)
| Abstract | This project tackles the problem of analyzing a specific form of reasoning called âsunk costsâ in economics and âargument from wasteâ in argumentation theory. The project is to build a normative structure representing the form of the argument, and then to apply this normative structure to actual cases in which the sunk costs argument has been used. The method is partly structural and partly empirical. The empirical part is carried out through the analysis of case studies of the sunk costs argument found in business decision-making, as well as other areas like medical decision-making and everyday conversational argumentation. The structural part is carried out by using existing methods and techniques from argumentation theory, like argumentation schemes. The project has three especially significant findings. First, the sunk costs argument is not always fallacious, and in many cases it can be seen to be a rational precommitment strategy. Second, a formal model of argumentation, called practical reasoning, can be constructed that helps a rational critic to judge which sunk costs arguments are fallacious and which are not. Third, this formal model represents an alternative model of rationality to the cost-benefit model based on Bayesian calculation of probabilities. This alternative model is called the argumentation model, and it is based on interpersonal reasoning in dialogue as the model of rational thinking. This model in turn is based on the underlying notion of commitment in dialogue | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesThomas Kelly (2004). Sunk Costs, Rationality, and Acting for the Sake of the Past. Noûs 38 (1):60–85.
Marcus Cunha & Fabio Caldieraro (2010). On the Observability of Purely Behavioral Sunk-Cost Effects: Theoretical and Empirical Support for the BISC Model. Cognitive Science 34 (8):1384-1387.
Paul A. Klaczynski & Jennifer M. Cottrell (2004). A Dual-Process Approach to Cognitive Development: The Case of Children's Understanding of Sunk Cost Decisions. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (2):147 – 174.
Alfonso R. Oddo (2001). Healthcare Ethics: A Patient-Centered Decision Model. Journal of Business Ethics 29 (1-2):125 - 134.
Kevin M. Passino (forthcoming). The Sunk-Cost Effect as an Optimal Rate-Maximizing Behavior. Acta Biotheoretica.
Theodore Pavlic & Kevin Passino (2011). The Sunk-Cost Effect as an Optimal Rate-Maximizing Behavior. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (1):53-66.
Kathleen Freeman & Arthur M. Farley (1996). A Model of Argumentation and its Application to Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):163-197.
D. N. Walton (2004). Argumentation Schemes and Historical Origins of the Circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument. Argumentation 18 (3):359-368.
J. Anthony Blair (1998). The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument. Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
Bart Verheij (2003). Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
Douglas Walton (2011). A Dialogue Model of Belief. Argument and Computation 1 (1):23-46.
David Ramsay Steele (1996). Nozick on Sunk Costs. Ethics 106 (3):605-620.
Henry Prakken (2011). Argumentation Without Arguments. Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-11Total downloads6 ( #145,761 of 549,699 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,699 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
