Ken Binmore and Avner Shaked are highly respected economists, well-known for their analytical contributions and breadth of knowledge. Moreover, they have actively participated in experimental economics for many years. However, their critique of the current state of experimental economics in general, and of Ernst Fehr and Klaus Schmidt’s presentation of their theory of inequality aversion in particular, are deeply flawed. Moreover, their conception of the relationship between theory and experiment and their interpretation of the empirical evidence on otherregarding preferences are untenable. Binmore and Shaked set the problem as follows: Should we follow those experimental economists who seek recognition of their subject as a science by adopting the scientific standards that operate in neighboring disciplines like biology or psychology? Or should we... [treat] experimental results as just one more rhetorical tool to be quoted when convenient in seeking to convert others to whatever your own point of view may be? Binmore and Shaked in fact identify only one aspect of scientific standards on which experimentalists are purportedly wanting, their failure to adopt “a more skeptical attitude when far-reaching claims about human behavior are extrapolated from very slender data. ” We maintain that experimental economics has not been faulty in this respect.