Abstract
Randall Stone's critique of theory of moves (TOM) is motivated by a desire to purge game theory of TOM's alleged “backsliding” and restore its superior orthodoxy. But Stone's indictment is marred by serious misunderstandings of TOM and unfortunate misconceptions about what constitutes a scientific theory and how it should be applied and tested. The author rebuts Stone's charges and briefly discusses a new area for which TOM seems especially well suited—the study of path dependence—suggesting how TOM can contribute to the understanding of when actors make seemingly irrational choices that lead to immediately worse outcomes.
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
