Duhemian Themes in Expected Utility Theory

  • Philippe Mongin
Part of the Boston Studies In The Philosophy Of Science book series (BSPS, volume 276)

According to the philosophical position of epistemological holism, the statements of the empirical sciences do not relate to observations singly, but collectively. This is because these statements belong to logically complex theoretical structures, which are to a large extent indivisible, and also because further theoretical assumptions (an “observational theory”) underlie the observations made to check them empirically. As a consequence of this basic claim, all brands of epistemological holism include an underdetermination thesis, to the effect that the scientists’ decisions about hypotheses are underdetermined by the evidence available to them, and in particular, by the results of the tests they perform. Pragmatic reasons must eventually prevail in the choice of attributing the evidence to this or that part of the theoretical whole, and when elaborating on these reasons, philosophers of science will never offer more than partial and context-dependent guidelines.


Utility Theory Prospect Theory Expect Utility Theory Observational Record Crucial Experiment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Fondements et applications de la théorie du risque en économétrie, Paris, Centre National sde la Recherche Scientifique, 1953.Google Scholar
  2. Allais Maurice (1953a), “Fondements d’une théorie positive des choix comportant un risque et critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine”, Appendix to Fondements, pp. 257–332. Reprint, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1955. English transl. “The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School”, in Allais and Hagen, 1979, pp. 27–145.Google Scholar
  3. Allais Maurice (1953b), “Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque”, Econometrica, 21, pp. 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allais Maurice (1979), “The So-called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions Under Uncertainty”, in Allais and Hagen, 1979, pp. 437–683.Google Scholar
  5. Allais Maurice (1988), “The General Theory of Random Choices in Relation to the Invariant Cardinal Utility Function and the Specific Probability Function. The (U, θ) Model: A General Overview”, in Munier, 1988, pp. 231–289.Google Scholar
  6. Allais Maurice and Hagen O. (1979) (eds), Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Allais Paradox, Dordrecht, D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  7. Ariew Roger (1974), “The Duhem Thesis”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 35, pp. 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouyssou Denis and Vansnick Jean-Claude (1990), “Utilité cardinale dans le certain et choix dans le risque”, Revue écononomique, 6, pp. 979–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyer Alain (1994), Introduction à la lecture de Karl Popper, Paris, Presses de l’École normale supérieure.Google Scholar
  10. Brenner Anastasios (1990), Duhem, science, réalité et apparence, Paris, Vrin.Google Scholar
  11. Camerer Colin (1992), “Recent Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory”, in Edwards, 1992, pp. 207–251.Google Scholar
  12. Camerer Colin (1995), “Individual Decision Making”, in J.H. Kagel and A. Roth (eds), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton, Princeton University Press, Chap. 8, pp. 587–703.Google Scholar
  13. Chew Soo Hong, Karni Edi and Safra Zvi (1987), “Risk Aversion in the Theory of Expected Utility with Rank Dependent Probabilities”, Journal of Economic Theory, 42, pp. 370–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen Michèle and Tallon Jean-Marc (2000), “Décision dans le risque et l’incertain: l’apport des modèles non-additifs”, Revue d’économie politique, 110, pp. 631–681.Google Scholar
  15. Conslik John (1989), “Three Variants on the Allais Example”, American Economic Review, 79, pp. 392–407.Google Scholar
  16. Cross Rod (1982), “The Duhem-Quine Thesis, Lakatos and the Appraisal of Theories in Macroeconomics”, Economic Journal, 92, pp. 320–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diecidue Enrico, Schmidt Ulrich and Wakker Peter (2004), “The Utility of Gambling Reconsidered”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 29, pp. 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duhem Pierre (1906), La théorie physique. Son objet, sa structure, Paris, Chevalier et Rivière (2nd ed., 1914). Reprint, Paris, Vrin, 1981, intr. P. Brouzeng. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, English transl. by P. Wiener, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1954.Google Scholar
  19. Duhem Pierre (1908), Sozein ta phainomena. Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon à Galilée, Paris, Hermann. Reprint Paris, Vrin, 1994, intr. by P. Brouzeng. To Save the Phenomena, English transl. by E. Dolland and C. Maschler, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  20. Edwards Ward (eds), (1992), Utility Theories: Measurement and Applications, Dordrecht, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Ellsberg Daniel (1956), “Classic and Current Notions of ‘Measurable Utility’”, Economic Journal, 64: 528–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellsberg Daniel (1961), “Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, pp. 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fishburn Peter C. (1970), Utility Theory for Decision Making, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Fishburn Peter C. (1982), The Foundations of Expected Utility, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  25. Fishburn Peter C. (1988), Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fishburn Peter C. (1989), “Retrospective on the Utility Theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2, 127–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fishburn Peter C. and Wakker Peter (1995), “The Invention of the Independence Condition for Preferences”, Management Science, 41, 1130–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fodor Jerry and Lepore Ernest (1992), Holism: A Shopper’s Guide, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Friedman Daniel and Sunder Shyam (1994), Experimental Methods. A Primer for Economists, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Friedman Milton and Savage Leonard J. (1948), “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk”, Journal of Political Economy, 56, pp. 278–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Friedman Milton and Savage Leonard J. (1952), “The Expected Utility Hypothesis and the Measurability of Utility”, Journal of Political Economy, 60, pp. 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gilboa Itzakh (1987), “Expected Utility with Purely Subjective Non-Additive Probabilities”, Journal of Mathematical Economics, 16, pp. 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gillies Donald (1993), Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Granger Gillies (1992), La vérification, Paris, Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  35. Grünbaum A. (1960), “The Duhemian Argument”, Philosophy of Science, 27, 75–88, reprinted in Harding, 1974, pp. 116–131.Google Scholar
  36. Guala Francesco (2000), “The Logic of Normative Falsification: Rationality and Experiments in Decision Theory”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 7, pp. 59–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guala Francesco (2005), The Methodology of Experimental Economics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hagen Ole (1979), “Towards a Positive Theory of Preferences under Risk”, in Allais and Hagen, 1979, pp. 271–302.Google Scholar
  39. Hammond Peter J. (1988), “Consequentialist Foundations for Expected Utility”, Theory and Decision, 25, 25–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hausman Daniel and Mongin Philippe (1998), “Economists’ Responses to Anomalies: Full-Cost Pricing versus Preference Reversals”, in J. Davis (eds), New Economics and Its History. History of Political Economy, Annual Supplement, vol. 29, pp. 255–272.Google Scholar
  41. Hey John D. (1991), Experiments in Economics, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Harding Sandra G. (eds) (1976), Can Theories be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  43. Jaffray Jean-Yves (1989), “Some Experimental Findings on Decision-Making under Risk and their Implications”, European Journal of Operation Research, 38, pp. 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jallais Sophie and Pradier Pierre-Charles (2005), “The Allais Paradox and its Immediate Consequences for Expected Utility Theory”, in P. Fontaine and R. Leonard (eds), The ‘Experiment’ in the History of Economics, Chap. 4, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Kahneman Daniel and Tversky Amos (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk”, Econometrica, 47, pp. 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Karmarkar Uday (1974), “The Effect of Probabilities on the Subjective Evaluation of Lotteries”, WP no 698-74, MIT, Sloane School of Management.Google Scholar
  47. Karmarkar Uday (1978), “Subjective Weighted Utility: A Descriptive Extension of the Expected Utility Model”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, pp. 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lakatos Imre (1970), “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.Google Scholar
  49. Laudan Laurens. (1965), “Grünbaum on the Duhemian Argument”, Philosophy of Science, 32, 295–301, reprinted in Harding, 1974, pp. 155–161.Google Scholar
  50. Laugier Sandra (1999), “Expérience cruciale”, in D. Lecourt (eds), Dictionnaire d’histoire et philosophie des sciences, pp. 404–406.Google Scholar
  51. Loomes Graham and Sugden Robert (1982), “Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty”, Economic Journal, 92, pp. 805–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Loomes Graham and Sugden Robert (1986), “Disappointment and Dynamic Consistency in Choice under Uncertainty”, Review of Economic Studies, 53, pp. 271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Luce R. Duncan and Raiffa Howard (1957), Games and Decisions, New York, Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
  54. McCord Mark and Neufville Richard de (1983), “Empirical Demonstration That Expected Utility Is Not Operational”, in Stigum and Wenstop, 1983, pp. 181–199.Google Scholar
  55. McClennen Edward F. (1983), “Sure-Thing Doubts”, in Stigum and Wenstop, 1983, pp. 117–136.Google Scholar
  56. MacCrimmon Kenneth R. and Larsson Stig (1979), “Utility Theory: Axioms versus ‘Paradoxes’”,in Allais and Hagen, 1979, pp. 333–409.Google Scholar
  57. Machina Mark J. (1982), “‘Expected Utility’ Analysis without the Independence Axiom”, Econometrica, 50, pp. 277–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Machina Mark J. (1983), “Generalized Expected Utility Analysis and the Nature of Observed Violations of the Independence Axiom”, in Stigum and Wenstop (1983, pp. 263–293).Google Scholar
  59. Machina Mark J. (1987), “Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1, pp. 121–154.Google Scholar
  60. Machina Mark J. (1991), “Dynamic Consistency and Non-Expected Utility”, in M. Bacharach and S. Hurley (eds), Foundations of Decision Theory, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 39–91.Google Scholar
  61. Markowitz Harry (1952), “The Utility of Wealth”, Journal of Political Economy, 60, pp. 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Marshall Alfred (1890), Principles of Economics, London, MacMillan, 8th ed., 1920.Google Scholar
  63. Marschak Jacob (1950), Rational Behavior, “Uncertain Prospects, and Measurable Utility”, Econometrica, 18, pp. 111–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mongin Philippe (1988), “Problèmes de Duhem en théorie de l’utilité espérée”, Fundamenta Scientiae, 9, pp. 289–317.Google Scholar
  65. Mongin Philippe (1997), “Expected Utility Theory”, in J. Davis, W. Hands and U. Mäki (eds), Handbook of Economic Methodology, London, Elgar, 1997, pp. 342–350.Google Scholar
  66. Mongin Philippe (2003), “L’axiomatisation et les théories économiques”, Revue économique, 54, pp. 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mongin Philippe (2006), “A Concept of Progress for Normative Economics”, Economics and Philosophy, 22, pp. 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mosteller Frederick and Nogee Philip (1951), “An Experimental Measurement of Utility”, Journal of Political Economy, 59, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Munier Bertrand (1988), “A Guide to Decision-Making under Uncertainty”, in Munier, 1988, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
  70. Munier Bertrand (eds), (1988), Risk, Decision, and Rationality, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  71. Popper Karl (1935), Logik der Forschung, Vienna, Julius Springer. Transl. as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London, Hutchinson, 1959 (6th revised ed., 1972).Google Scholar
  72. Popper Karl (1963), Conjectures and Refutations, London, Routledge (4th revised ed., 1972).Google Scholar
  73. Popper Karl (1983), The Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, I. Realism and the Aim of Science, London, Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  74. Quiggin John (1982), “A Theory of Anticipated Utility”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Quine Willard V.O. (1953), From a Logical Point of View, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  76. Rubin Herman (1949), “The Existence of Measurable Utility and Psychological Probability”, Cowles Discussion Papers, no 332.Google Scholar
  77. Samuelson, Paul A. (1952a), “Utility, Preference, and Probability” in J. Stiglitz (eds), The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, 1, Chap. 13, 127–136.Google Scholar
  78. Samuelson Paul A. (1952b), “Probability, Utility, and the Independence Axiom”, Econometric Society, 20, 670–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Savage Leonard J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics, New York, Wiley, 2nd ed., New York, Dover, 1972.Google Scholar
  80. Schmeidler David (1986), “Integral Representation without Additivity”, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 97, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schmeidler David (1989), “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity”, Econometrica, 57, 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Segal Uzi (1992), “The Independence Axiom versus the Reduction Axiom: Must We Have Both?”, in Edwards, p. 165–183.Google Scholar
  83. Slovic Paul and Tversky Amos (1974), “Who Accepts Savage’s Axiom?”, Behavioral Science, 19, 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Starmer Chris (2000), “Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: the Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk”, Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.Google Scholar
  85. Sugden Robert (1986), “New Developments in the Theory of Choice Under Uncertainty”, Bulletin of Economic Research, 38, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stigum Bernt and Wenstop Fred (1983) (eds), Foundations of Utility and Risk theory with Applications, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  87. Varian Hal R. (1978), Microeconomic Analysis, New York, Norton.Google Scholar
  88. Von Neumann John and Morgenstern Oskar (1944), The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton, Princeton University Press (2nd ed. 1947).Google Scholar
  89. Vuillemin Jules (1979), “On Duhem and Quine’s Theses”, Grazer Philosophische Studien, 9, 69–96.Google Scholar
  90. Yaari Menahem (1987), “The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk”, Econometrica, 55, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Mongin
    • 1
  1. 1.GREG-HEC 1 rue de la LibérationFrance

Personalised recommendations