> So, not all social science or even economics is
> obvious.
>
I guess you have a point here. What I wanted to say is that game and related theories merely describe hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical situations and these hypothetical situations are often used as anecdotes to illustrate or disprove a moral or a political point - just like the theory of evolution is used in "social Darwinism." A far more interesting question - from a scientific point of view - would be to examine the empirical conditions under which any hypothetical outcome will obtain (i.e. when the prisoners will rat on each other or when they will remain silent). In my mind, bringing attention to a possibility is obviously important - but why fetishizing it by spectacles like the Nobel Prize?
I guess my beef is with the notion underlying the Nobel Prize in general rather than with this or that theoretical pursuit. That is to say - there are many important pursuits in science or literature, but why fetishizing one of them while ignoring all other? Why is the notion of being Number 1 that important and for what or for whom? Is it a mere expression of vanity - so abundant in the academe - or perhaps it serves also some political functions, such as the "best possible world" thing etc.?
Wojtek