<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01258nam a22001577a 4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">514768</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">514768</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">201212b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Fumagalli , Roberto. </subfield>
    <subfield code="9">21706</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">On the individuation of choice options</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Philosophy of The Social Sciences </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a"> 50(4), Jul, 2020: p,338-365</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Decision theorists have attempted to accommodate several violations of decision theory&#x2019;s axiomatic requirements by modifying how agents&#x2019; choice options are individuated and formally represented. In recent years, prominent authors have worried that these modifications threaten to trivialize decision theory, make the theory unfalsifiable, impose overdemanding requirements on decision theorists, and hamper decision theory&#x2019;s internal coherence. In this paper, I draw on leading descriptive and normative works in contemporary decision theory to address these prominent concerns. In doing so, I articulate and assess several different criteria for individuating and formally representing agents&#x2019; choice options.- Reproduced </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Decision theory, Rationality, Axioms, Preferences, Consistency, Choice options</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">19620</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Philosophy of The Social Sciences </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">DECISION THEORY</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">388780</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2020-12-12</subfield>
    <subfield code="h"> 50(4), Jul, 2020: p,338-365</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR123645</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2020-12-12</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
