Unrealistic assumptions and unnecessary confusions: Rereading and rewriting F53 as a realist statement

The Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 90-116

  Mäki, Uskali ^a  

^a ACADEMY OF FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880475043     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511581427.005     Document Type: Chapter

References (25)

1. Boland, Lawrence A. (1979). A critique of Friedman’s critics. Journal of Economic Literature, 17, 503–22
2. Caldwell, Bruce J. (1992). Friedman’s methodological instrumentalism: a modification. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 10, 119–28
3. Duhem, Pierre (1954). The Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press
4. Friedman, Michael (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 71, 5–19
5. Friedman, Milton (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 3–43
6. Hands, D. Wade (2003). Did Milton Friedman’s methodology license the formalist revolution? Journal of Economic Methodology, 10, 507–20
7. Hindriks, Frank (2005). Unobservability, tractability, and the battle of assumptions. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12, 383–406
8. Hirsch, Abraham. and Neil De Marchi (1990). Milton Friedman: Economics in Theory and Practice. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf
9. Kitcher, Philip (1976). Explanation, conjunction, and unification. Journal of Philosophy 73, 207–12
10. Kitcher, Philip (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48, 507–31
11. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970/1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
12. Lakatos, Imre (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91–196
13. Mäki, Uskali (1986). Rhetoric at the expense of coherence: a reinterpretation of Milton Friedman’s methodology, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 4, 127–43
14. Mäki, Uskali (1992). Friedman and realism. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 10, 171–95
15. Mäki, Uskali (1998).“As if.” In J. Davis, W. Hands and U. Mäki, (eds.) The Handbook of Economic Methodology. Edward Elgar 1998, 25–7
16. Mäki, Uskali (2000). Kinds of assumptions and their truth: shaking an untwisted F-twist. Kyklos, 53, 303–22
17. Mäki, Uskali (2001). Explanatory unification: double and doubtful. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 31, 488–506
18. Mäki, Uskali (2003). “The methodology of positive economics” (1953) does not give us the methodology of positive economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 10, 495–505
19. Mäki, Uskali (2004). Realism and the nature of theory: a lesson from J. H. von Thünen for economists and geographers. Environment and Planning A, 36, 1719–36
20. Mayer, Thomas (1993). Friedman’s methodology of positive economics: a soft reading. Economic Inquiry 31, 213–23
21. Musgrave, Alan (1981). “Unreal assumptions” in economic theory: the F-twist untwisted. Kyklos 34, 377–87
22. Popper, Karl (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Unwin Hyman
23. Rotwein, Eugene (1959). On the methodology of positive economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 73, 554–75
24. Samuelson, Paul (1963). Problems of methodology – discussion. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 53, 231–36
25. Wong, Stanley (1973). The F-twist and the methodology of Paul Samuelson. American Economic Review, 63, 312–25