David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (4):527-530 (2003)
Friedman's essay argued that the primary criterion of validity for economic models was not descriptive fidelity, but the accuracy and importance of the predictions generated by its implications. His argument was directed against a major current of mid?twentieth?century economics that sought to alter neoclassical theory by displacing the competitive firm as a centerpiece of price theory. The success of Friedman's counter argument was due not only to its cogency but also to major improvements in econometric techniques, data sources and computational capabilities during the last fifty years. As a result contemporary challenges to neoclassical facilities can proceed without resort to the methodological gambits against which Friedman inveighed fifty years ago. A striking example of such a contemporary challenge is the attack on the ?Law of One Price? in the field of Finance.
|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
Uskali Mäki (2003). 'The Methodology of Positive Economics' (1953) Does Not Give Usthemethodology of Positive Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (4):495-505.
Thomas Mayer (2003). Fifty Years of Milton Friedman's 'The Methodology of Positive Economics': Introduction. Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (4):493-494.
Dennis C. Mueller (2004). Models of Man: Neoclassical, Behavioural, and Evolutionary. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (1):59-76.
Eric Schliesser (2005). Galilean Reflections on Milton Friedman’s "Methodology of Positive Economics," with Thoughts on Vernon Smith’s "Economics in the Laboratory". Philosophy of the Social Sciences 35 (1):50-74.
Huei-Chun Su (2012). Beyond the Positive–Normative Dichotomy: Some Remarks on Colander'sLost Art of Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 19 (4):375-390.
David Colander (1995). Is Milton Friedman an Artist or a Scientist? Journal of Economic Methodology 2 (1):105-122.
Uskali Mäki (2009). Reading the Methodological Essay in Twentieth Century Economics: Map of Multiple Perspectives. In , The methodology of positive economics : Reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. Cambridge University Press.
Milton Friedman (1953). The Methodology of Positive Economics. In , Essays in Positive Economics. University of Chicago Press. 3-43.
David Teira (2009). Why Friedman's Methodology Did Not Generate Consensus Among Economists? Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31 (2):201-214.
Geert Reuten (1996). A Revision of the Neoclassical Economics Methodology. Journal of Economic Methodology 3 (1):39-68.
Oliver E. Williamson (2009). Pragmatic Methodology: A Sketch, with Applications to Transaction Cost Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 16 (2):145-157.
Lawrence A. Boland (2003). Methodological Criticismvs. Ideology and Hypocrisy. Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (4):521-526.
Lawrence A. Boland (1998). Situational Analysis Beyond Neoclassical Economists. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 28 (4):515-521.
Added to index2012-02-20
Total downloads4 ( #254,935 of 1,101,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #177,551 of 1,101,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?