David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Barrett and Artzenius posed a problem concerning infinite sequences of decisions. It appeared that the strategy of making the rational choice at each stage of the game was, in some circumstances, guaranteed to lead to lower returns than the strategy of making the irrational choice at each stage. This paper shows that there is only the appearance of paradox. The choices that Barrett and Artzenius were calling ‘rational’ cannot be economically justified, and so it is not surprising that someone who makes them ends up with sub-optimal returns. A solution to the more general problem they pose is also advanced.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Piers Rawling (1997). Perspectives on a Pair of Envelopes. Theory and Decision 43 (3):253-277.
John Pollock (2004). Plans And Decisions. Theory and Decision 57 (2):79-107.
Peter A. Facione (2001). Analyzing Explanations for Seemingly Irrational Choices. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (2):267-286.
Mark Colyvan (2008). Relative Expectation Theory. Journal of Philosophy 105 (1):37-44.
Russell Disilvestro (2009). Reproductive Autonomy, the Non-Identity Problem, and the Non-Person Problem. Bioethics 23 (1):59-67.
Howard Sankey (1995). The Problem of Rational Theory-Choice. Epistemologia 18 (2):299-312.
Mark J. Machina (2000). Barrett and Arntzenius's Infinite Decision Puzzle. Theory and Decision 49 (3):291-295.
Bernard H. J. Verstegen (1994). Law and Economics and the Infinite Regress in Explaining Rationality. Journal of Economic Methodology 1 (2):269-278.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #136,407 of 1,010,257 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?