Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Knowledge, Belief and Counterfactual Reasoning in Games

  • Robert Stalnaker (a1)
Abstract

Deliberation about what to do in any context requires reasoning about what will or would happen in various alternative situations, including situations that the agent knows will never in fact be realized. In contexts that involve two or more agents who have to take account of each others' deliberation, the counterfactual reasoning may become quite complex. When I deliberate, I have to consider not only what the causal effects would be of alternative choices that I might make, but also what other agents might believe about the potential effects of my choices, and how their alternative possible actions might affect my beliefs. Counterfactual possibilities are implicit in the models that game theorists and decision theorists have developed – in the alternative branches in the trees that model extensive form games and the different cells of the matrices of strategic form representations – but much of the reasoning about those possibilities remains in the informal commentary on and motivation for the models developed. Puzzlement is sometimes expressed by game theorists about the relevance of what happens in a game ‘off the equilibrium path’: of what would happen if what is (according to the theory) both true and known by the players to be true were instead false.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

C. Alchourón and D. Makinson . 1982. ‘The logic of theory change: contraction functions and their associated revision functions’. Theoria, 48:1437

R. Aumann 1976. ‘Agreeing to Disagree’. Annals of Statistics, 4:1236–39

M. Bacharach 1985. ‘Some extensions of a claim of Aumann in an axiomatic model of knowledge’. Journal of Economic Theory, 37:167–90

B. Bernheim 1984. ‘Rationalizable strategic behavior’. Econometrica, 52:1007–28

L. Blume , A. Brandenburger and E. Dekel . 1991a. ‘Lexicographic probabilities and choice under uncertainty’. Econometrica, 59:6179

L. Blume , A. Brandenburger and E. Dekel . 1991b. ‘Lexicographic probabilities and equilibrium refinements’. Econometrica, 59:8198

E. Dekel and D. Fudenberg . 1990. ‘Rational behavior with payoff uncertainty’. Journal of Economic Theory, 52:243–67

A. Grove 1988. ‘Two modelings for theory change’. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17:157–70

W. Harper 1975. ‘Rational belief change, popper functions and counterfactuals’. Synthese, 30:221–62

D. Makinson 1985. ‘How to give it up: a survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change’. Synthese, 62:347–63

P. Mongin 1994. ‘The logic of belief change and nonadditive probability’, in Logic and Philosophy of Science in Uppsala. D. Prawitz and D. Westerstahl (eds.). Kluwer

D. Lewis 1980. ‘Causal decision theory’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59:530

G. Pearce 1984. ‘Rationalizable strategic behavior and the problem of perfection’. Econometrica, 52:1029–50

P. Pettit and R. Sugden . 1989. ‘The backward induction paradox’. Journal of Philosophy, 86:169–82

B. Skyrms 1982. ‘Causal decision theory’. Journal of Philosophy, 79:695711

R. Stalnaker 1994. ‘On the evaluation of solution concepts’. Theory and Decision, 37:4973

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×