Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:27:15.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subjunctive Conditionals and Revealed Preference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Brian Skyrms
Brian Skyrms*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of California, Irvine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Subjunctive conditionals are fundamental to rational decision both in single agent and multiple agent decision problems. They need explicit analysis only when they cause problems, as they do in recent discussions of rationality in extensive form games. This paper examines subjunctive conditionals in the theory of games using a strict revealed preference interpretation of utility. Two very different models of games are investigated, the classical model and the limits of reality model. In the classical model the logic of backward induction is valid, but it does not use subjunctive conditionals; the relevant subjunctive conditionals do not even make sense. In the limits of reality model the subjunctive conditionals do make sense but backward induction is valid only under special assumptions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 545 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697.

‡

Earlier versions of this paper were read at a conference in Honor of John Harsanyi and John Rawls at the University of Caen in June 1996, an economics seminar at the University of California, Davis in April 1997, and a conference, Quantities in Science II, at the University of Salzburg in August 1997. I would like to thank Gary Bell, Cristina Bicchieri, Ken Binmore, Giacomo Bonnano, Peter Hammond, Bill Harper, Richard Jeffrey, Mark Machina, Edward McClennen, Klaus Nehring, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Reinhart Selten, Robert Sugden, Peter Woodruff, and an anonymous referee for helpful discussions.

References

Adams, Ernest (1975), The Logic of Conditionals. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-015-7622-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, Robert J. (1995), “Backward Induction and Common Knowledge of Rationality”, Games and Economic Behavior 8: 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, Robert J. (1996), “Reply to Binmore”, Games and Economic Behavior 17: 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Gary (1997), “Omonotonic Extensions of Natural Families of Partitions”, Working Paper, Philosophy Dept., University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, Cristina (1987), “Self-Refuting Theories of Strategic Interaction: A Paradox of Common Knowledge”, Erkenntnis 30: 69–85.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, Cristina (1988), “Strategic Behavior and Counterfactuals”, Synthese 76: 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, Cristina and Antonelli, Aldo (1995), “Game Theoretic Axioms for Local Rationality and Bounded Knowledge”, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 4: 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, Cristina and Green, Mitchell (forthcoming), “Symmetry Arguments for Cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma”, in Bicchieri, Cristina, Jeffrey, Richard, and Skyrms, Brian (eds.), The Logic of Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, Cristina and Schulte, Oliver (1996), “Common Reasoning About Admissibility”, Erkenntnis 45: 299–325.Google Scholar
Binmore, Ken. (1987–88), “Modeling Rational Players I and II”, Economics and Philosophy 3: 179–214 and 4: 9–55.10.1017/S0266267100002893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, Ken. (1994), Playing Fair: Game Theory and the Social Contract. Cambridge, MA.: MIT. Press.Google Scholar
Binmore, Ken. (1996), “A Note on Backward Induction”, Games and Economic Behavior 17: 135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, Lawrence, Brandenburger, Adam, and Dekel, Eddie (1991), “Lexicographic Probabilities and Choice Under Uncertainty”, Econometrica 59: 61–79.10.2307/2938240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonanno, Giacomo (1991), “The Logic of Rational Play in Games of Perfect Information”, Economics and Philosophy 7: 37–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chellas, Brian (1975), “Basic Conditional Logic”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 4: 133–228.10.1007/BF00693270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, Alan and Harper, William (1978), “Counterfactuals and Two Kinds of Expected Utility”, in Hooker, C. A. et al. (eds.), C. A. Hooker et al. Dordrecht: Reidel, 153–190.Google Scholar
Hammond, Peter (1976), “Changing Tastes and Coherent Dynamic Choice”, Review of Economic Studies 43: 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, William (1988), “Causal Decision Theory and Game Theory”, in Harper, W. and Skyrms, B. (eds.), Decision, Belief Change and Statistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, William (1991), “Ratifiability and Refinements (in Two-Person Noncooperative Games)”, in Bacharach, M. and Hurley, S. (eds.), Foundations of Decision Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 263–293.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, John (1967–68), “Games of Incomplete Information Played by Bayesian Players”, Management Science 14: 159–182, 320–334, 486–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, John and Selten, Reinhard (1988), A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, Elon and Mertens, Jean-François (1986), “On the Strategic Stability of Equilibria”, Econometrica 54: 1003–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David K. (1973), Counterfactuals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan. and Raiffa, Howard (1957), Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McGee, Vann (1994), “Learning the Impossible”, in Eells, E. and Skyrms, B. (eds.), Probability and Conditionals: Belief Revision and Rational Decision. New York: Cambridge University Press, 179–199.Google Scholar
Myerson, Roger (1991), Game Theory, Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nute, Donald (1980), Topics in Conditional Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Philip and Sugden, Robert (1989), “The Backwards Induction Paradox”, Journal of Philosophy 4: 1–14.Google Scholar
Pollock, John (1976), Subjunctive Reasoning. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reny, Philip (1993), “Rationality in Extensive Form Games”, Journal of Economic Theory 59: 627–649.Google Scholar
Samet, Dov (1996), “Hypothetical Knowledge and Games with Perfect Information”, Games and Economic Behavior. 17: 230–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Leonard J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Selten, Reinhard (1975), “Reexamination of Perfectness Concept for Equilibrium Points in Extensive Games”, International Journal of Game Theory 4: 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, Reinhard and Leopold, Ulrike (1982), “Subjunctive Conditionals in Decision and Game Theory”, in Stegmuller, W. et al. (eds.), W. Stegmuller et al. Berlin: Springer, 199–200.Google Scholar
Shin, Hyun S. (1992), “Counterfactuals and a Theory of Equilibrium in Games”, in Bicchieri, C. and Dalla Chiara, M. L. (eds.), Knowledge, Belief and Strategic Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, Brian (1980), Causal Necessity New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, Brian (1984), Pragmatics and Empiricism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, Brian (1988), “Conditional Chance”, in Fetzer, J. (ed.), Probability and Causality. Dordrecht: Reidel, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, Brian (1994), “Adams Conditionals”, in Eells, E. and Skyrms, B. (eds.), Probability and Conditionals: Belief Revision and Rational Decision. New York: Cambridge University Press, 13–26.Google Scholar
Skyrms, Brian, Bell, Gary, and Woodruff, Peter (forthcoming), “Parametric Conditionals, Stalnaker Conditionals, Natural Families, and General Bayesian Conditionals: What is Needed for Decision Theory?”, in Weingartner, P., Schurtz, G., and Dorn, G. (eds.), The Role of Pragmatics in Contemporary Philosophy: Proceedings of the 20th International Wittgenstein Symposium. Vienna: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. (1968), “A Theory of Conditionals”, in Rescher, N. (ed.), Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 98–112.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. (1973), “Letter to David Lewis”, in W. L. Harper et al. (eds.) (1980), IFS. Dordrecht: Reidel, 151–152.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. (1994a), “Letter to Brian Skyrms”, in Eells, E. and Skyrms, B. (eds.), Probability and Conditionals: Belief Revision and Rational Decision. New York: Cambridge University Press, 27–29.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. (1994b), “On the Evaluation of Solution Concepts”, Theory and Decision 37: 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. (forthcoming), “Knowledge, Belief and Counterfactual Reasoning in Games”, in Bicchieri, C., Jeffrey, R., and Skyrms, B. (eds.), The Logic of Strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strotz, Robert H. (1956), “Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization”, Review of Economic Studies 23: 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodruff, Peter (1969), “Notes on Conditional Logic”, working paper, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Woodruff, Peter (forthcoming), “Partitions and Conditionals”, Journal of Philosophical Logic.Google Scholar