Abstract
Louis Marinoff [1990] criticizes Axelrod and Hamilton's [1981] use of the
concept of an evolutionarily stable strategy, and claims to find an inconsistency
between their theory for repeated Prisoner's Dilemma games and
empirical results. Marinoff seeks to resolve the inconsistency by arguing that
Axelrod and Hamilton's model is ill conceived: he purports to prove, contra
Axelrod and Hamilton, that no evolutionarily stable strategy exists in the
repeated Prisoner's Dilemma. But his argument is flawed, and moreover,
Marinoff gives no good reason for thinking the claimed discrepancy between
thory and empirical results exists.