tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post6193251541343069546..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Milton Friedman on the critical distinction between positive and normative economicsEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-91044779461651331242013-02-07T15:36:40.782-05:002013-02-07T15:36:40.782-05:00Don't tell Major_Freedom.Don't tell Major_Freedom.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-50655068691510579202013-02-07T12:51:02.003-05:002013-02-07T12:51:02.003-05:00Hilary Putnam has argued that the fact/value disti...Hilary Putnam has argued that the fact/value distinction cannot be maintained, including in economics.<br />-- RobertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-48552691484804920042013-02-07T10:43:22.430-05:002013-02-07T10:43:22.430-05:00I think it's critical to keep Friedman's v...I think it's critical to keep Friedman's views on positive claims separate from his claims about positivist method. Of course for him they're related but you need not embrace both. I obviously have big problems with Friedman's positivism - I think I've written on that before and anyway I talk a lot about my Kuhnian views of science, and Lakatos mixes very well with that (although I haven't personally read as much Lakatos). But he is exactly on target with positive and normative claims.<br /><br />When you say the distinction has been criticized by philosophers do you just mean the criticism of positivism? I'd have to know more.<br /><br />There's a Rortyian line of argument that tries to talk about literature, philosophy, morality, science as all being comparable. On a certain level I agree with this. He says, and I agree, that our explanations of the world are ultimately going to be ungrounded in reality because they are based on our perceptions and mediate through our minds, and (very critically for Rorty) our language. In this broader sense we are just making arguments that we are using to try to convince other people. <br /><br />I disagree with taking that insight and saying that the normative/positive distinction isn't a useful one to apply to the sorts of claims we make. In other words, I agree that we are all doing persuasion and therefore any answer we give to any question (positive or normative) is going to be an attempt at persuasion rather than proof (what we call "proofs" are just attempts at persuasion). But just because all arguments are persuasive does not mean that we can't usefully classify some claims as normative and some as positive. It also does not mean that the sorts of persuasion we utilize to defend each of those claims are the same. They're not. They're different.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-11289220617225363142013-02-07T10:31:05.467-05:002013-02-07T10:31:05.467-05:00Daniel Kuehn, just for clarity's sake, you sho...Daniel Kuehn, just for clarity's sake, you should note that in <i>Essays in Positive Economics</i>, Milton Friedman cites the *father* of John Maynard Keynes - John *Neville* Keynes.<br /><br />Also Daniel, have you heard of the philosopher Imre Lakatos? He and Milton Friedman apparently clashed over Friedman's methodology. Wikipedia has a brief summary of the matter below.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#The_Milton_Friedman_neoclassical_economics_case_study<br /><br />While I don't consider myself heterodox (in fact, there are things about Milton Friedman that I do respect, like his accomplishment with Anna Schwartz: <i>A Monetary History of the United States: 1867 to 1960</i>), Friedman's positive versus normative distinction has been criticised by philosophers. (I can't find a good source ATM however.)<br /><br />On another note, Milton Friedman's own track record for prediction - apart from the breakdown of the Phillips Curve trade-off between inflation and unemployment in the long run - has come under criticism. Please see the following September 1986 article in the <i>Journal of Economic Issues</i>.<br /><br />http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/4225761Blue Aurorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02044362251868221897noreply@blogger.com