Oskar Morgenstern’s preface to Morton Davis’s book on game theory, dated February 1972 and supplied here in its 2005 version, combines a methodological justification of the discipline with a defense of accessible scientific exposition. Its argument moves from the distinctive character of social interaction through game theory’s mathematical foundations to Davis’s ability to explain rigorous theory without sacrificing precision.
For Morgenstern, social science requires more than the transfer of methods successful in physics. People act together or against one another, possess unequal knowledge, and pursue goals that generate both conflict and cooperation. His contrast with physical processes makes intentional interaction the decisive methodological problem:
Atome, Moleküle, Sterne können allen möglichen Veränderungen unterworfen sein, aber sie bekämpfen einander nicht – noch arbeiten sie bewußt miteinander.
English translation: Atoms, molecules, stars may undergo all manner of changes, but they do not fight one another—nor do they consciously work together.
Game theory promises a mathematics appropriate to these relations. Morgenstern traces its foundations to von Neumann’s 1928 minimax theorem and identifies the publication of Theory of Games and Economic Behavior in 1944 as its breakthrough. Strategic games become models through which social phenomena can receive exact mathematical analysis. Equally important is conceptual clarification: utility, information, strategy, equilibrium, and bargaining must become precisely defined terms rather than remain loose verbal descriptions.
Ohne genaue Begriffe wäre es unmöglich, bei Untersuchungen über das rein verbale Stadium hinauszukommen – was ein sehr eingeschränktes Verständnis der untersuchten Phänomene zur Folge hätte.
English translation: Without precise concepts, it would be impossible for investigations to move beyond the purely verbal stage—which would result in a very limited understanding of the phenomena under investigation.
This criticism of merely verbal inquiry does not exclude explanation for readers without advanced mathematics. Morgenstern distinguishes imprecise argument from mature verbal exposition grounded in technical mastery. Davis’s deep knowledge and participation in the theory’s development qualify him to make unfamiliar ideas accessible. Such writing can also stimulate further research, as popular scientific exposition has done in mathematics and the natural sciences.
The preface closes by situating Davis’s achievement against two obstacles in social-scientific writing: a relative scarcity of comparably developed theories and the difficulty of separating emotionally charged questions from personal judgments.
Das vorliegende Buch weist keine derartigen Schwächen auf; es erklärt, analysiert und bietet Lösungen an, aber die Theorie, die beschrieben und entwickelt wird, ist völlig wertneutral.
English translation: The present book exhibits no such weaknesses; it explains, analyzes, and offers solutions, but the theory that is described and developed is entirely value-neutral.
Value-neutrality is Morgenstern’s explicit claim for the theory, linking mathematical rigor to impartial exposition. His endorsement remains prospective: social complexity demands sophisticated theory, and much work is unfinished. The preface’s significance lies in presenting game theory simultaneously as a distinct foundation for social inquiry and as knowledge that can—and should—reach a wider public.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian