Hostname: page-component-7857688df4-xdcjr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-12T17:18:10.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Benefit versus Expected Utility Acceptance Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Alex C. Michalos
Alex C. Michalos*
Affiliation:
University of Guelph, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A rule for the acceptance of scientific hypotheses called ‘the principle of cost-benefit dominance’ is shown to be more effective and efficient than the well-known principle of the maximization of expected (epistemic) utility. Harvey's defense of his theory of the circulation of blood in animals is examined as a historical paradigm case of a successful defense of a scientific hypothesis and as an implicit application of the cost-benefit dominance rule advocated here. Finally, various concepts of ‘dominance’ are considered by means of which the effectiveness of our rule may be increased.

Information

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1970 , 1970 , pp. 375 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1970

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The number of friends who have kindly given me suggestions and encouragement is almost embarrassingly large, but I would like to express my gratitude to Myles Brand, Cliff Hooker, David Hull, Scott Kleiner, Hugh Lehman, Werner Leinfellner, Andrew McLaughlin and Tom W. Settle.

References

[1] Ackermann, R., ‘Inductive Simplicity’, Philosophy of Science 28 (1961) 152–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Ackoff, R. L., Scientific Method, New York 1962.Google Scholar
[3] Archer, E. J., Bourne, L. E., and Brown, F. G., ‘Concept Identification as a Function of Irrelevant Information and Instructions’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 49 (1955) 153-164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[4] Arrow, K. J., Social Choice and Individual Values, New York 1951.Google Scholar
[5] Barker, S. F., Induction and Hypothesis, Ithaca 1957.Google Scholar
[6] Buchdahl, G., Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science, Oxford 1969.Google Scholar
[7] Bunge, M., Metascientific Queries, Springfield 1959.Google Scholar
[8] Bunge, M., “The Weight of Simplicity in the Construction and Assaying of Scientific Theories’, Philosophy of Science 28 (1961) 120–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Bunge, M., Scientific Research, Vol. II, Berlin 1967.Google Scholar
[10] Burks, A. W., “The Pragmatic-Humean Theory of Probability and Lewis’ Theory’, in The Philosophy of C. I. Lewis (ed. by Schilpp, P. A.), LaSalle 1968, pp. 415–464.Google Scholar
[11] Carnap, R., Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago 1950.Google Scholar
[12] Chisholm, R. M., ‘Lewis’ Ethics of Belief’, in The Philosophy of C. I. Lewis (ed. by Schilpp, P. A.), LaSalle 1968, pp. 223–242.Google Scholar
[13] A. C., Crombie, Medieval and Early Modern Science, Volume I and II, Garden City 1959.Google Scholar
[14] Dodgson, C. L. (Lewis Carroll), ‘A Discussion of the Various Methods of Procedure in Conducting Elections’, reprinted in Black, D., The Theory of Committees and Elections, Cambridge 1963, pp. 214–222.Google Scholar
[15] Ellsberg, D., Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms, P-2173, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] P. C., Fishburn, Decision and Value Theory, New York 1964.Google Scholar
[17] Fleming, D., ‘Galen on the Motions of the Blood in the Heart and Lungs’, Isis 46 (1955) 14–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[18] Galen, , On the Natural Faculties (trans, by Brock, A. J.), London 1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] Good, I. J., ‘Corroboration, Explanation, Evolving Probability, Simplicity and a Sharpened Razor’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1968) 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Goodman, N., ‘Recent Developments in the Theory of Simplicity’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 19 (1959) 429–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21] Graubard, M., Circulation and Respiration, New York 1964.Google Scholar
[22] Harsanyi, J. C., ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility’, Journal of Political Economy 63 (1955) 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Harvey, W., An Anatomical Disquisition on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals, Willis's translation revised and edited by Bowie, A., London, 1889 and reprinted in Classics of Medicine and Surgery (ed. by Camac, C. M. B.), New York 1959.Google Scholar
[24] Hayes, J. R., ‘Human Data Processing Limits in Decision Making’, Electronics System Division Report, ESD-TDR-62-48, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25] Hempel, C. G., ‘Inductive Inconsistencies’, Synthese 12 (1960) 439–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26] Hempel, C. G., ‘Deductive-Nomological Versus Statistical Explanation’, in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III (ed. by Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G.), Minneapolis, 1962, pp. 98–169.Google Scholar
[27] Hempel, C. G., ‘Recent Problems of Induction’, in Mind and Cosmos (ed. by Colodny, R. G.), Pittsburgh 1966, pp. 112–134.Google Scholar
[28] Hertz, H., The Principles of Mechanics, New York 1956.Google Scholar
[29] Hildreth, C., ‘Alternative Conditions for Social Orderings’, Econometrica 21 (1953) 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30] Hinrichs, H. H. and Taylor, G. M. (eds.), Program Budgeting and Benefit-Cost Analysis, Pacific Palisades, Calif. 1969.Google Scholar
[31] Hintikka, J. and Suppes, P., Aspects of Inductive Logic, Amsterdam 1966.Google Scholar
[32] Jeffreys, H., Scientific Inference, Cambridge 1957.Google Scholar
[33] Keynes, J. M., A Treatise on Probability, London 1921.Google Scholar
[34] Kuhn, A., The Study of Society, Homewood, III. 1963.Google Scholar
[35] Lakatos, I., ‘Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic’, in The Problem of Inductive Logic (ed. by Lakatos, I.), Amsterdam 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[36] Laudan, L., “Theories of Scientific Method from Plato to Mach’, History of Science 6 (1968), 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[37] Leach, J., ‘Explanation and Value Neutrality’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1968) 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[38] Leinfellner, W., ‘Generalization of Classical Decision Theory’, in Risk and Uncertainty (ed. by Borch, K. and Mossin, J.), London 1968, pp. 196–210.Google Scholar
[39] Levi, I., ‘On the Seriousness of Mistakes’, Philosophy of Science 29 (1962) 47–65.Google Scholar
[40] Levi, I., Gambling with Truth, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[41] Little, I. M. D., A Critique of Welfare Economics, Oxford 1950.Google Scholar
[42] Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H., Games and Decisions, New York 1957.Google Scholar
[43] MacCrimmon, K. R., Decisionmaking Among Multiple-Attribute Alternatives: A Survey and Consolidated Approach, Memorandum RM-4823-ARPA, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, 1968.Google Scholar
[44] Mackenzie, W. J. M., Free Elections, London 1967.Google Scholar
[45] Manheim, M. L. and Hall, F. L., ‘Abstract Representation of Goals’, P-67-24, Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T., 1968.Google Scholar
[46] Margenau, H., The Nature of Physical Reality, New York, 1950.Google Scholar
[47] McLaughlin, A., ‘Science, Reason and Value’, Theory and Decision 2 (1970), to be published.Google Scholar
[48] Michalos, A. C., Probability and Degree of Confirmation: A Study of the Disagreement Between Karl Popper and Rudolf Carnap from 1934 to 1964. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1965.Google Scholar
[49] Michalos, A. C, ‘Two Theorems of Degree of Confirmation’, Ratio 7 (1965) 196–198.Google Scholar
[50] A. C., Michalos, ‘Estimated Utility and Corroboration’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16 (1966), 327–331.Google Scholar
[51] Michalos, A. C., ‘Postulates of Rational Preference’, Philosophy of Science 34 (1967) 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[52] A. C., Michalos, ‘Descriptive Completeness and Linguistic Variance’, Dialogue 6 (1967) 224–228.Google Scholar
[53] Michalos, A. C., ‘An Alleged Condition of Evidential Support’, Mind 78 (1969) 440–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[54] Michalos, A. C., Principles of Logic, Englewood Cliffs 1969.Google Scholar
[55] A. C., Michalos, ‘A Theory of Decision-Making Evaluation’, paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, 1969.Google Scholar
[56] Michalos, A. C., ‘Analytic and Other “Dumb” Guides of Life’, Analysis, to be published.Google Scholar
[57] Michalos, A. C., ‘Decision-Making in Committees’, American Philosophical Quarterly 7 (1970) 91–106.Google Scholar
[58] Michalos, A. C., ‘Positivism Versus the Hermeneutic-Dialectic School’, Theoria 35 (1969) Part 3, 267–278.Google Scholar
[59] Michalos, A. C., ‘The Costs of Decision-Making’, Public Choice, to be published.Google Scholar
[60] Michalos, A. C., “The Impossibility of an Ordinal Measure of Acceptability’, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
[61] Michalos, A. C., ‘Efficiency and Morality’, paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association, 1970.Google Scholar
[62] Miller, G. A., “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two’, Psychological Review 63 (1956) 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[63] Miller, D. W. and Starr, M. K., Executive Decisions and Operations Research, Englewood Cliffs 1960.Google Scholar
[64] Milnor, J., ‘Games Against Nature’, in Decision Processes (ed. by Thrall, R. M., Coombs, C. H., and Davis, R. L.), New York 1954, pp. 49–60.Google Scholar
[65] von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O., Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton 1947.Google Scholar
[66] Newman, P., The Theory of Exchange, Englewood Cliffs 1965.Google Scholar
[67] Osgood, C. S., Suci, G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H., The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana 1957.Google Scholar
[68] Pagel, W., ‘The Position of Harvey and van Helmont in the History of European Thought’, in Toward Modern Science, Vol. II (ed. by Palter, R. M.), New York 1961, pp. 175–191.Google Scholar
[69] Popper, K. R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York 1959.Google Scholar
[70] Prest, A. R. and Turvey, R., ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis: a Survey’, The Economic Journal 75 (1965) 683–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[71] Pruzan, P. M., ‘Is Cost-Benefit Analysis Consistent with the Maximization of Expected Utility?’, in Operational Research and the Social Sciences (ed. by Lawrence, J. R.), London (1966) pp. 319–336.Google Scholar
[72] Raiffa, H., Preferences for Multi-Attributed Alternatives, Memorandum RM-5868-DOT/RC, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, 1969.Google Scholar
[73] Rescher, N., Introduction to Value Theory, Englewood Cliffs 1969.Google Scholar
[74] Rothenberg, J., The Measurement of Social Welfare, Englewood Cliffs, 1961.Google Scholar
[75] Salmon, W. C., The Foundations of Scientific Inference, Pittsburgh 1966.Google Scholar
[76] Schlesinger, G., Method in the Physical Sciences, London 1963.Google Scholar
[77] Shepard, R. N., ‘On Subjectively Optimum Selection Among Multi-Attribute Alternatives’, Human Judgements and Optimally (ed. by Shelly, M. W. and Bryan, G.L.), New York 1964, pp. 257–281.Google Scholar
[78] Simon, H. A. and March, J. G., Organizations, New York 1958.Google Scholar
[79] Singer, C., A Short History of Anatomy and Physiology from The Greeks to Harvey, New York 1957.Google Scholar
[80] Stedry, A. C. and Charnes, A., ‘The Attainment of Organization Goals Through Appropriate Selection of Subunit Goals’, in Operational Research and the Social Sciences (ed. by Lawrence, J. R.), London 1966, pp. 147–164.Google Scholar
[81] G., Tullock and Buchanan, J. M., The Calculus of Consent, Ann Arbor 1962.Google Scholar
[82] Wilkie, J. S., ‘Harvey’s Immediate Debt to Aristotle and to Galen’, History of Science 4 (1965) 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[83] Williams, P. M., ‘The Structure of Acceptance and Its Evidential Basis’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1969) 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[84] Wilson, C. Z. and Alexis, M., ‘Basic Frameworks for Decisions’, Journal of the Academy of Management 5 (1962), 151–164.Google Scholar