The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste
- Douglas Walton
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
This project tackles the problem of analyzing a specific form of reasoning called ‘sunk costs’ in economics and ‘argument from waste’ in argumentation theory. The project is to build a normative structure representing the form of the argument, and then to apply this normative structure to actual cases in which the sunk costs argument has been used. The method is partly structural and partly empirical. The empirical part is carried out through the analysis of case studies of the sunk costs argument found in business decision-making, as well as other areas like medical decision-making and everyday conversational argumentation. The structural part is carried out by using existing methods and techniques from argumentation theory, like argumentation schemes. The project has three especially significant findings. First, the sunk costs argument is not always fallacious, and in many cases it can be seen to be a rational precommitment strategy. Second, a formal model of argumentation, called practical reasoning, can be constructed that helps a rational critic to judge which sunk costs arguments are fallacious and which are not. Third, this formal model represents an alternative model of rationality to the cost-benefit model based on Bayesian calculation of probabilities. This alternative model is called the argumentation model, and it is based on interpersonal reasoning in dialogue as the model of rational thinking. This model in turn is based on the underlying notion of commitment in dialogue.
- Arkes, H. and C. Blumer: 1985, ‘The Psychology of Sunk Cost’,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 35, 129–140.
- Barnden, John A.: 1995,‘simulative Reasoning, Common-sense Psychology, and Artificial Intelligence’, in Martin Davies and Tony Stone (eds.), Mental Simulation, Blackwell, Oxford, 247–273.
- Camillo, Renato and Lorenzo Peccati: 1997, ‘Are Sunk Costs Really Sunk?’, Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche 44, 43–51.
- Capen, Edward C.: 1991, ‘Rethinking Sunk Costs - A Value Approach’,Journal of Petroleum Technology 43, 1418–1423.
- Clemen, Robert T.: 1996, Making Hard Decisions:An Introduction to Decision Analysis, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
- Considine, Jill, Arupatan Daripan, Simone Varotto, Shuji Kobayakawa and Patrick Parkinson: 1998, ‘Incentive-Compatible Regulation: Views on the Precommitment Approach’, Economic Policy Review 4, 129–157.
- Dawkins, Richard:1976, The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989 (first published).
- Elster, Jon:1984,Ulysses and the Sirens, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Elster, Jon: 2000, UlyssesUnbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment and Constraints, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Fox, John and Subrata Das: 1996, ‘A Unified Framework for Hypothetical and Practical Reasoning: Lessons from Medical Applications’, First International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 73–92.
- Fox, John and Subrata Das: 2000, Safe and Sound: ArtificialIntelligence in Hazardous Applications, American Association for Artificial Intelligence and MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
- Hamblin, Charles: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
- Leland, Jonathan W.: 1991,‘Informal Reasoning in Decision Theory’, in James F. Voss, David N. Perkins and Judith W. Segal (eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 209–223.
- Moore, Robert C.: 1985, ‘Semantic Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logic’, Artificial Intelligence 25, 75–94.
- Nozick, Robert: 1993, The Nature of Rationality, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
- Patashnik, Eric M.: 1997, ‘Unfolding Promises: Trust Funds and the Politics ofPrecommitment’, Political Science Quarterly 112, 432–453.
- Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969, The New Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
- Simon, H. A.:1983, Reason in Human Affairs, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
- Staw, Barry M.: 1997,‘The Escalation of Commitment: An Update and Appraisal’, in Zur Shapira (ed.), Organizational Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 191–215.
- Steele, DavidRamsay: April 1996, ‘Nozick on Sunk Costs’, Ethics, 605–620
- Thaler, R.:1980, ‘Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1, 39–60.
- Waldron, Jeremy: 1998, ‘Precommitment andDisagreement’, in Larry Alexander (ed.), Constitutionalism: Philosophical Foundations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 271–299.
- Walton, Douglas: 1990, Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven,Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation, Savage, Rowman and Littlefield, Maryland.
- Walton, Douglas:1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J.
- Walton, Douglas N.and Erik C. W. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, SUNY Press, Albany.
- The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste
Volume 16, Issue 4 , pp 473-503
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- practical reasoning
- Industry Sectors
- Douglas Walton (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, 515 Portage Avenue, MB R3B 2E9, Winnipeg, Canada