Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-benefit versus expected utility acceptance rules

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ackermann, R., ‘Inductive Simplicity’, Philosophy of Science 28 (1961) 152–161.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ackoff, R. L., Scientific Method, New York 1962.

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arrow, K. J., Social Choice and Individual Values, New York 1951.

  5. Barker, S. F., Induction and Hypothesis, Ithaca 1957.

  6. Buchdahl, G., Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science, Oxford 1969.

  7. Bunge, M., Metascientific Queries, Springfield 1959.

  8. Bunge, M., ‘The Weight of Simplicity in the Construction and Assaying of Scientific Theories’, Philosophy of Science 28 (1961) 120–149.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bunge, M., Scientific Research, Vol. II, Berlin 1967.

  10. Burks, A. W., ‘The Pragmatic-Humean Theory of Probability and Lewis' Theory’, in The Philosophy of C. I. Lewis (ed. by P. A. Schilpp), LaSalle 1968, pp. 415–464.

  11. Carnap, R., Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago 1950.

  12. Chisholm, R. M., ‘Lewis’ Ethics of Belief, in The Philosophy of C. I. Lewis (ed. by P. A. Schilpp), LaSalle 1968, pp. 223–242.

  13. Crombie, A. C., Medieval and Early Modern Science, Volume I and II, Garden City 1959.

  14. Dodgson, C. L. (Lewis Carroll), ‘A Discussion of the Various Methods of Procedure in Conducting Elections’, reprinted in D. Black, The Theory of Committees and Elections, Cambridge 1963, pp. 214–222.

  15. Ellsberg, D., Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms, P-2173, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fishburn, P. C., Decision and Value Theory, New York 1964.

  17. Fleming, D., ‘Galen on the Motions of the Blood in the Heart and Lungs’, Isis 46 (1955) 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Galen, On the Natural Faculties (trans. by A. J. Brock), London 1916.

  19. Good, I. J., ‘Corroboration, Explanation, Evolving Probability, Simplicity and a Sharpened Razor’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1968) 123–143.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goodman, N., ‘Recent Developments in the Theory of Simplicity’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 19 (1959) 429–446.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Graubard, M., Circulation and Respiration, New York 1964.

  22. Harsanyi, J. C., ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility’, Journal of Political Economy 63 (1955) 309–321.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Harvey, W., An Anatomical Disquisition on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals, Willis's translation revised and edited by A. Bowie, London, 1889 and reprinted in Classics of Medicine and Surgery (ed. by C. M. B. Camac), New York 1959.

  24. Hayes, J. R., ‘Human Data Processing Limits in Decision Making’, Electronics System Division Report, ESD-TDR-62-48, 1962.

  25. Hempel, C. G., ‘Inductive Inconsistencies’, Synthese 12 (1960) 439–469.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hempel, C. G., ‘Deductive-Nomological Versus Statistical Explanation’, in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III (ed. by H. Feigl and G. Maxwell), Minneapolis, 1962, pp. 98–169.

  27. Hempel, C. G., ‘Recent Problems of Induction’, in Mind and Cosmos (ed. by R. G. Colodny), Pittsburgh 1966, pp. 112–134.

  28. Hertz, H., The Principles of Mechanics, New York 1956.

  29. Hildreth, C., ‘Alternative Conditions for Social Orderings’, Econometrica 21 (1953) 81–91.

    Google 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.

  32. Jeffreys, H., Scientific Inference, Cambridge 1957.

  33. Keynes, J. M., A Treatise on Probability, London 1957.

  34. Kuhn, A., The Study of Society, Homewood, Ill. 1963.

  35. Lakatos, I., ‘Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic’, in The Problem of Inductive Logic (ed. by I. Lakatos), Amsterdam 1968.

  36. Laudan, L., ‘Theories of Scientific Method from Plato to Mach’, History of Science 6 (1968), 1–63.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Leach, J., ‘Explanation and Value Neutrality’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1968) 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Leinfellner, W., ‘Generalization of Classical Decision Theory’, in Risk and Uncertainty (ed. by L. Borch and J. Mossin), London 1968, pp. 196–210.

  39. Levi, I., ‘On the Seriousness of Mistakes’, Philosophy of Science 29 (1962) 47–65.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Levi, L, Gambling with Truth, New York, 1967.

  41. Little, I. M. D., A Critique of Welfare Economics, Oxford 1950.

  42. Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H., Games and Decisions, New York 1964.

  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.

  45. Manheim, M. L. and Hall, F. L., ‘Abstract Representation of Goals’, P-67-24, Department of Civil Engineering, M.I.T., 1968.

  46. Margenau, H., The Nature of Physical Reality, New York, 1950.

  47. McLaughlin, A., ‘Science, Reason and Value’, Theory and Decision 2 (1970), to be published.

  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.

  49. Michalos, A. C., ‘Two Theorems of Degree of Confirmation’, Ratio 7 (1965) 196–198.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Michalos, A. C., ‘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.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Michalos, A. C., ‘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.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Michalos, A. C., Principles of Logic, Englewood Cliffs 1969.

  55. Michalos, A. C., ‘A Theory of Decision-Making Evaluation’, paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association, 1969.

  56. Michalos, A. C., ‘Analytic and Other “Dumb” Guides of Life’, Analysis, to be published.

  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.

  60. Michalos, A. C., ‘The Impossibility of an Ordinal Measure of Acceptability’, unpublished manuscript.

  61. Michalos, A. C., ‘Efficiency and Morality’, paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association, 1970.

  62. Miller, G. A., ‘The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two’, Psychological Review 63 (1956) 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Miller, D. W. and Starr, M. K., Executive Decisions and Operations Research, Englewood Cliffs 1960.

  64. Milner, J., ‘Games Against Nature’, in Decision Processes (ed. by R. M. Thrall, C. H. Coombs, and R. L. Davis), New York 1960, pp. 49–60.

  65. von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O., The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton 1947.

  66. Newman, P., The Theory of Exchange, Englewood Cliffs 1965.

  67. Osgood, C. S., Suci, G. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H., The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana 1957.

  68. Pagel, W., ‘The Position of Harvey and van Helmont in the History of European Thought’, in Toward Modern Science, Vol. II (ed. by R. M. Palter), New York 1961, pp. 175–191.

  69. Popper, K. R., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York 1959.

  70. Prest, A. R. and Turvey, R., ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis: a Survey’, The Economic Journal 75 (1965) 683–735.

    Google 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 J. R. Lawrence), London (1966) pp. 319–336.

  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.

  74. Rothenberg, J., The Measurement of Social Welfare, Englewood Cliffs 1961.

  75. Salmon, W. C., The Foundations of Scientific Inference, Pittsburgh 1966.

  76. Schlesinger, G., Method in the Physical Sciences, London 1963.

  77. Shepard, R. N., ‘On Subjectively Optimum Selection Among Multi-Attribute Alternatives’, Human Judgments and Optimality (ed. by M. W. Shelly and G. L. Bryan), New York 1964, pp. 257–281.

  78. Simon, H. A. and March, J. G., Organizations, New York 1958.

  79. Singer, C., A Short History of Anatomy and Physiology from The Greeks to Harvey, New York 1957.

  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 J. R. Lawrence), London 1966, pp. 147–164.

  81. Tullock, G. and Buchanan, J. M., The Calculus of Consent, Ann Arbor 1962.

  82. Wilkie, J. S., ‘Harvey's Immediate Debt to Aristotle and to Galen’, History of Science 4 (1965) 103–124.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Williams, P. M., ‘The Structure of Acceptance and Its Evidential Basis’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1969) 325–344.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Wilson, C. Z. and Alexis, M., ‘Basic Frameworks for Decisions’, Journal of the Academy of Management 5 (1962), 151–164.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

    Alex C. Michalos

Authors
  1. Alex C. Michalos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Michalos, A.C. Cost-benefit versus expected utility acceptance rules. Theor Decis 1, 61–88 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132453

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132453

Keywords

Search

Navigation