Argumentation

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 473–503 | Cite as

The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste

  • Douglas Walton
Article

Abstract

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.

Argumentation commitment decision-making dialogue economics fallacies practical reasoning precommitment rationality self-binding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Arkes, H. and C. Blumer: 1985, ‘The Psychology of Sunk Cost’,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 35, 129–140.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Camillo, Renato and Lorenzo Peccati: 1997, ‘Are Sunk Costs Really Sunk?’, Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche 44, 43–51.Google Scholar
  4. Capen, Edward C.: 1991, ‘Rethinking Sunk Costs - A Value Approach’,Journal of Petroleum Technology 43, 1418–1423.Google Scholar
  5. Clemen, Robert T.: 1996, Making Hard Decisions:An Introduction to Decision Analysis, Wadsworth, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Dawkins, Richard:1976, The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989 (first published).Google Scholar
  8. Elster, Jon:1984,Ulysses and the Sirens, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Elster, Jon: 2000, UlyssesUnbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment and Constraints, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Fox, John and Subrata Das: 2000, Safe and Sound: ArtificialIntelligence in Hazardous Applications, American Association for Artificial Intelligence and MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  12. Hamblin, Charles: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Moore, Robert C.: 1985, ‘Semantic Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logic’, Artificial Intelligence 25, 75–94.Google Scholar
  15. Nozick, Robert: 1993, The Nature of Rationality, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  16. Patashnik, Eric M.: 1997, ‘Unfolding Promises: Trust Funds and the Politics ofPrecommitment’, Political Science Quarterly 112, 432–453.Google Scholar
  17. Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969, The New Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  18. Simon, H. A.:1983, Reason in Human Affairs, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Steele, DavidRamsay: April 1996, ‘Nozick on Sunk Costs’, Ethics, 605–620Google Scholar
  21. Thaler, R.:1980, ‘Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1, 39–60.Google Scholar
  22. Waldron, Jeremy: 1998, ‘Precommitment andDisagreement’, in Larry Alexander (ed.), Constitutionalism: Philosophical Foundations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 271–299.Google Scholar
  23. Walton, Douglas: 1990, Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven,Knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation, Savage, Rowman and Littlefield, Maryland.Google Scholar
  24. Walton, Douglas:1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J.Google Scholar
  25. Walton, Douglas N.and Erik C. W. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, SUNY Press, Albany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas Walton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WinnipegWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations