Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Rationalism in economics is defined by the assumption that agents act according to consistent, optimizing rational choice—not by intended outcomes.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Humans systematically violate consistency axioms (framing effects, preference reversals); calling this 'rational' redefines rationalism into meaninglessness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Distinguishing process from outcomes creates a gap where agents optimize for wrong goals; the definition becomes disconnected from actual economic welfare.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
No empirical test can confirm internal consistency without some reference to outcomes or goals; pure process-focus is circular and unfalsifiable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Process-focused definitions avoid the pitfall of judging rationality by outcomes, which depend on luck and incomplete information beyond agent control.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Consistency and optimization are observable behavioral patterns; intended outcomes require unverifiable access to subjective mental states.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This definition preserves rationalism's explanatory power while remaining empirically testable through revealed preferences and choice structures.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.