The maladroitness of epistemic tit for tat

Journal of Philosophy 86 (6):324-331 (1989)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,867

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

The Maladroitness of Epistemic Tit for Tat.John Woods - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (6):324.
Misunderstandings of Epistemic Tit for Tat: Reply to John Woods.Michel J. Blais - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87 (7):369.
Epistemic tit for tat.Michel J. Blais - 1987 - Journal of Philosophy 84 (7):363-375.
Epistemic Tit for Tat.Michel J. Blais - 1987 - Journal of Philosophy 84 (7):363.
The Ethics of Tit-for-Tat.Massimo Pigliucci - 2001 - Philosophy Now 33:28-29.
Tit for tat for tit: On reactive loops and regresses.Stephen Kearns - 2023 - Analysis 83 (1):55-60.
The repeated public goods game: A solution using Tit-for-Tat and the Lindahl point.Mark Irving Lichbach - 1992 - Theory and Decision 32 (2):133-146.
The moral and ethical significance of tit for tat.Peter Danielson - 1986 - Dialogue 25 (3):449-.
Cosmic evolution, reciprocity, and interstellar tit for tat.Albert A. Harrison - 2014 - In Douglas A. Vakoch (ed.), Extraterrestrial altruism: evolution and ethics in the cosmos. New York: Springer.
Gaps in Harley's argument on evolutionarily stable learning rules and in the logic of “tit for tat”.Reinhard Selten & Peter Hammerstein - 1984 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (1):115.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
25 (#620,189)

6 months
4 (#1,004,663)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Testimony: a primer.Martin Kusch & Peter Lipton - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (2):209-217.
Game Theory in Philosophy.Boudewijn de Bruin - 2005 - Topoi 24 (2):197-208.
And so indeed are perfect cheat.John Woods - 1995 - Argumentation 9 (4):645-668.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references