Has rational choice theory been corroborated by empirical evidence?
             This question addresses one side of scientific discovery, the positivist belief into knowledge gained from the observation of the world. It implicitly also aims at the alternative way of achieving knowledge – logical deduction from a broader theoretical framework. Both these issues need to be addressed in any comment onto any theory. This becomes specifically urgent when considering Rational Choice Theory. When we look to everyday life, the idea that human beings solely direct their actions according to rational principles seems somewhat obscure. Chance makes it hard to predict the future consequences of an intended action, and the actions of one agent do depend on the actions of many other agents.
             The place to start from is consequentially the question of logical deduction. Is there a logical link between other social theories and Rational Choice Theory (RCT)? We will find that RCT is a not a deduction of broader social theories, it is a reduction of them (1). This makes it hard to justify RCT logically. It will consequently be vital to understand that RCT is indeed a deduction, but from a different framework: economics (2). It is not corroborated by observation because empirics will refute the theory. Agents only approach, but never achieve complete rationality (3). Rational choice theory as a deductive theory is not corroborated by empirical evidence.
             (1) Rational Choice Theory is not deduced from earlier sociological theories. A deduction is a conclusion reached by applying the rules of logic to a premise, in this case the previous sociological knowledge accumulated. RCT could thus only be a deduction of other sociological theories if it would take on board the entirety of earlier knowledge and would then, through logical reasoning, arrive at a new conclusion. The theory to hold the greatest potential for such a deduction is the structural explicati...