Dissertation, University of Michigan (2016)

Authors
Aaron Bronfman
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Abstract
This dissertation develops the theory of imperfect rationality in the practical and theoretical domains. I characterize imperfect rationality in terms of the quality of reasoning on which an agent's actions and beliefs are based, which I call their rational worth. Perfectly rational actions and beliefs are based on the best reasoning available to the agent: they are based on all the agent's evidence, on an appropriate weighting of all the relevant values, and on the right inductive and deductive principles. Imperfectly rational actions and beliefs are based on good reasoning that falls short of the best reasoning: they are based on a portion of the agent's evidence, on a subset of the relevant values, and on approximate or heuristic reasoning. The idea of rational worth, I argue, helps both to describe and to improve upon the tools that imperfectly rational agents use to think about what to do and what to believe. These tools include a plurality of deliberative questions that imperfectly rational agents use to guide themselves toward better ways of falling short of the ideal of perfect rationality. They also include a practical normative verdict available to agents who can assess a few possible rationales for acting one way or another but who cannot say what an ideal evaluation of all their evidence would support doing. Finally, they include substantive heuristics that result in beliefs and actions that are more, but still not perfectly, rational; for example, I argue that imperfectly rational agents can legitimately engage in a form of hindsight bias as a reasonable second-best strategy. I aim primarily at understanding how imperfectly rational agents can and should cope with their distinctive predicament, but in each case, I also draw lessons for our understanding of the ideal of perfect rationality.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,130
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What God Does Not Possess: Moses Mendelssohn’s Philosophy of Imperfection.Dustin Noah Atlas - 2019 - Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 27 (1):26-59.
Acerca de la Teoria y Práctica Clínica de la Terapia de la Imperfección.Ricardo Peter - 2018 - Topologik : Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Filosofiche, Pedagogiche e Sociali 23 (1).
Hubert Dreyfus and the Last Myth of the Mental.Timothy J. Nulty - 2014 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 14 (1):49-64.
The Imperfect God.Ron Margolin - 2020 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 12 (2):65-87.
The Ways of Reason.Juan Manuel Comesana - 2003 - Dissertation, Brown University
Religious Objects and the Coping Process.Mikael Lundmark - 2015 - Archive for the Psychology of Religion 37 (1):54-83.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-08-05

Total views
7 ( #1,067,645 of 2,506,443 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #209,812 of 2,506,443 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes