scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Rationality

About: Rationality is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 20459 publications have been published within this topic receiving 617787 citations.


Papers
More filters
Book
01 Jan 1996
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss how ethics and economics can be combined in positive and normative economics, including game theory, rationality, norms and morality, and game theory with social choice theory.
Abstract: Introduction 1. Ethics and economics 2. Two examples Part I. Rationality and Morality: 3. Rationality 4. Rationality in positive and normative economics 5. Rationality, norms and morality Part II. Welfare and Consequences: 6. Welfare 7. Efficiency 8. Utilitarianism and consequentialism Part III. Libert, Rights, Equality and Justice: 9. Liberty, rights and libertarianism 10. Equality and egalitarianism 11. Justice and contractualism Part IV. Moral Mathematics: 12. Social choice theory 13. Game theory Part V. Conclusions: 14. Conclusions Appendix: How could ethics matter to economics?

393 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
John Gerring1
TL;DR: The concept of ideology has been studied extensively in the social sciences as mentioned in this paper, with many definitions of ideology circulating within the field of social sciences in the postwar decades, including those of Campbell et al. (1960), Converse (1964), and McClosky (1964).
Abstract: What does "ideology" mean? As a preliminary step to answering this muchasked question, I collected what seemed to be the most thoughtful and/or influential definitions circulating within the social sciences in the postwar decades. 1 A quick perusal of these definitions reveals the extent to which ideology remains a highly flexible conceptual tool (see Table 1). One is struck not only by the cumulative number of different attributes that writers find essential, but by their more than occasional contradictions. To some, ideology is dogmatic, while to others it carries connotations of political sophistication; to some it refers to dominant modes of thought, and to others it refers primarily to those most alienated by the status quo (e.g., revolutionary movements and parties). To some it is based in the concrete interests of a social class, while to others it is characterized by an absence of economic self-interest. One could continue, but the point is already apparent: not only is ideology farflung, it also encompasses a good many definitional traits which are directly at odds with one another. Indeed, it has become customary to begin any discussion of ideology with some observation concerning its semantic promiscuity.2 Few concepts in the social science lexicon have occasioned so much discussion, so much disagreement, and so much selfconscious discussion of the disagreement, as "ideology." Condemned time and again for its semantic excesses, for its bulbous unclarity, the concept of ideology remains, against all odds, a central term of social science discourse. How, then, are we to understand this semantic confusion, and how are we to deal with it? Five common approaches can be identified among writers in the social sciences: operationalization, terminological reshuffling, intellectual history, etiology and multivocality. In the following section, I outline each of these endeavors and demonstrate their limitations. I then proceed to a new approach which comprehensively maps the meanings of ideology onto a single, reasonably concise, semantic grid. I conclude with a brief discussion of "core" meanings for ideology, and a plea for context-dependent methods of definition. COMMON APPROACHES 1. Operationalization Among those who study "behavior" in American politics, discussion of ideology has centered on a single empirical question: how ideological is the mass public (compared, that is, with political elites)? There have been a good many twists and turns in this debate since it was introduced by Campbell et al. (1960), McClosky et al. (1960), Converse (1964), and McClosky (1964). But the debate over the ideological proclivities of the mass public does not seem much closer to resolution today than it did in the 1960s.3 The reason for this lack of resolution has something to do with problems of data incommensurability through time and differing methods of operationalizing variables, as generally recognized. Less often recognized are the various problems of definition inherent in the concept of ideology. Is an "ideological" mode of thought characterized by abstraction, internal consistency, external contrast, endurance through time, rationality, sophistication, a hierarchical ordering of idea-elements, parsimony-or some combination of these characteristics? Is it separate from group affiliation and/or party affiliation? Such questions, which merely scratch the surface of scholarly debate among behavioralists, are "definitional" in the sense that no answer can claim a priori precedence over another. Each definitional attribute may, of course, be operationalized in different ways, raising a second tier of disputes. Indeed, some writers take the position that definitional tasks are contained within-and rightfully subservient to-tasks of operationalization. "It matters primarily not what you call it, but how you measure it," is the implicit approach of many behavioralists. Although there is surely much to be said for a pragmatic/ empirical approach to concept definition, this has not proven an entirely successful strategy in the instant case. …

391 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the philosophical foundations of rational-choice theory are examined in relation to coordination games and the concept of "resolute" choice, and it is argued that common knowledge of rationality does not imply that rational game-players must be in Nash equilibrium, and for some games is an incoherent concept.
Abstract: This paper looks at the philosophical foundations of rational-choice theory. It is argued that L. Savage's expected-utility axioms cannot be defended as requirements of instrumental rationality, in part because of their implications for the description of consequences. Then it is argued that common knowledge of rationality does not imply that rational game-players must be in Nash equilibrium, and for some games is an incoherent concept. Finally, the suggestion that rational-choice theory is self-defeating is examined in relation to coordination games (where the theory cannot explain the role of salience) and the concept of "resolute" choice. Copyright 1991 by Royal Economic Society.

391 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: When information on product quality is not perfect, theories in the areas of consumer rationality, inference, and risk-aversion suggest at least three consumer choice strategies: best value, price-....
Abstract: When information on product quality is not perfect, theories in the areas of consumer rationality, inference, and risk-aversion suggest at least three consumer choice strategies: best value, price-...

390 citations

Book
01 Mar 2000
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present an alternative theory of argumentation based on the notion of manifest rationality, which they call Argumentation as Manifest Rationality (AMR) theory.
Abstract: Contents: Preface. Introduction. Part I: The Historical Context. Context: Argumentation as a Cultural Practice. Context: The Study of Argumentation. Paradigm Abandoned: Critique of Deductivism. Lessons From the Past. Part II: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Informal Logic: An Alternative Theory of Argument. Argument as Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Conception. What Makes a Good Argument? Toward a Theory of Evaluation. Principles of Criticism. Part III: Matters Dialectical. Criticisms, Objections, and Replies. Alternative Theories of Argument. Outstanding Issues and the Research Agenda. Retrospect and Prospect.

389 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Ideology
54.2K papers, 1.1M citations
85% related
Empirical research
51.3K papers, 1.9M citations
81% related
Politics
263.7K papers, 5.3M citations
80% related
Incentive
41.5K papers, 1M citations
79% related
Democracy
108.6K papers, 2.3M citations
79% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
2023921
20221,963
2021645
2020689
2019682
2018753