David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
It has already been argued by Frazer and Boland (1983) that, interpreted in an instrumentalist fashion, Milton Friedman’s well known and much criticized 1953 paper on “The Methodology of Positive Economics”1 proved to be convergent with Popper's falsificationist philosophy of science2. I think that this comparison is flawed. For one can assuredly contest this interpretation in view of the fact that Popper always opposed any kind of instrumentalist philosophy of science3. It is not even clear that what Friedman has to say on the intricate question of the status of theories and on the function of tests has anything to do with what Popper criticizes under the general category of “instrumentalism”. What I will do here is not so much to directly challenge the Frazer-Boland interpretation as to replace it with a completely new comparison of both methodologies in order to get a new look at Friedman's methodological stance. Of course, one has to focus only on the arguments that really are comparable and leave aside those that could easily be proved to be fundamentally different, if not plainly incompatible. But, as I will try to show, the exercise is worthwhile, for this new comparison will force us to reinterpret, at least partially, what seem to me to be the two central tenets of Friedman's methodological doctrine. Of course, in order to find convergence between Friedman's and Popper's views on economic methodology, we have to read..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert Nadeau (1993). Confuting Popper on the Rationality Principle. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 23 (4):446-467.
Uskali Mäki (2003). 'The Methodology of Positive Economics' (1953) Does Not Give Usthemethodology of Positive Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (4):495-505.
D. Wade Hands (2003). Did Milton Friedman's Methodology License the Formalist Revolution? Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (4):507-520.
Marco Buzzoni (2004). Poppers Methodologischer Individualismus Und Die Sozialwissenschaften. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 35 (1):157-173.
David Teira (2009). Why Friedman's Methodology Did Not Generate Consensus Among Economists? Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31 (2):201-214.
Lawrence A. Boland (2003). Methodological Criticismvs. Ideology and Hypocrisy. Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (4):521-526.
Jeff Kochan (2009). Popper's Communitarianism. In Zuzana Parusniková & Robert S. Cohen (eds.), Rethinking Popper (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 272). Springer. 287--303.
Lawrence A. Boland (1998). Situational Analysis Beyond Neoclassical Economists. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 28 (4):515-521.
Added to index2009-05-25
Total downloads35 ( #69,644 of 1,696,514 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #69,930 of 1,696,514 )
How can I increase my downloads?