Abstract
At least since Leonard Savage’s extension of von Neumann and Morgenstern’s expected utility, rational choice theory has been interpreted as a theory prescribing what individuals should do in any decision context, ranging from certainty to risk and uncertainty. After decades this received view, usually termed Bayesian, has been criticized for its normative content. This paper compares the current critique of the notion of Bayesian rationality, proposed by Itzhak Gilboa, with Daniel Ellsberg’s classic critique of Savage’s understanding of rationality. The paper argues that Ellsberg’s classic analysis of Savage’s theory totally anticipated today’s criticism.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
