Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7fx5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T18:57:19.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making a Case When Theory is Unfalsifiable

Friedman's Monetary History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Abraham Hirsch  and
Neil de Marchi
Abraham Hirsch
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Neil de Marchi
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Milton Friedman's famous methodological essay contains, along with much else, some strands that look as though they were taken from the “empirical-scientific” fabric described by Karl Popper (Popper, 1959, pp. 32, 37; see also Klant, 1984, pp. 33ff. for a very clear discussion). Think, for example, of Friedman's conviction that the way to test a (theoretically embedded) hypothesis is to compare its implications with experience (Friedman, 1953a in 1953b, pp. 9, 13, 14). Or of his more or less explicit espousal of the view that while no amount of facts can ever prove a hypothesis true, a single “fact” may refute it (ibid., p. 9). Or of his assertion that hypotheses are to be accepted only as provisionally true (ibid., p. 41), and then only after repeated efforts to refute them have failed (ibid., pp. 9, 22–23). The appearance of these Popperian ideas is not surprising.

Information

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 1986 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bennett, W. Lance, and Feldman, Martha S. 1981. Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark 1976. “Kuhn versus Lakatos or Paradigms versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics.” Method and Appraisal in Economics, edited by Latsis, S. J.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark 1980. The Methodology of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brunner, Karl (editor). 1981. The Great Depression Revisited. Rochester studies in Economics and Policy Issues, vol. 2. Boston: Kluwer, Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce. 1984. Appraisal and Criticism in Economics. A Book of Readings. Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Cross, Rod. 1982. “The Duhem-Quine Thesis, Lakatos and the Appraisal of Theories in Macroeconomics.” The Economic Journal (June). In Appraisal and Criticism in Economics, edited by Caldwell, B.. Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Diesing, P. 1985. “Hypothesis Testing and Data Interpretation: The Case of Milton Friedman.” Mimeo.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1926. The Purchasing Power of Money. New and revised ed.New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1934. “The Fitting of Indifference Curves as a Method of Deriving Statistical Demand Curves.” Unpublished paper; summary and quotation in Schultz, Henry, The Theory and Measurement of Demand, chapt. 19.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1935. “Professor Pigou's Method of Measuring Elasticities of Demand from Budgetary Data.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1940. “Review of Tinbergen's Business Cycles in the United States of America, 1919–1932.” American Economic Review (09).Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1942. “Discussion [of the Inflationary Gap].” American Economic Review (June). Enlarged version in Essays m Positive Economics.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1949. “The Marshallian Demand Curve.” Reprinted in Essays in Positive Economics. Journal of Political Economy (12).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1951. “Comment (on Christ).” Conference on Business Cycles. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953a. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953b. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1955. “Leon Walras and His Economic System.” American Economic Review (12).Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1959. “The Demand for Money: Some Theoretical and Empirical Results.” Journal of Political Economy (August). Reprinted in The Optimum Quantity of Money, chapt. 6.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1964. “The Monetary Studies of the National Bureau.” The National Bureau Enters its 45th Year. 44th Annual Report of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Reprinted in The Optimum Quantity of Money, Chapt. 12.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1969. The Optimum Quantity of Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1970. “Comment on Tobin.” Quarterly Journal of Economics (05).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1971. “A Theoretical Framework for Monetary Analysis.” In Milton Friedman's Monetary Framework, edited by Gordon, R. J.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1976. “Comments.” In Monetarism, edited by Stein, J. L.. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. and Schwartz, Anna J. 1963a. “Money and Business Cycles.” Review of Economics and Statistics (02). Reprinted in The Optimum Quantity of Money, chapt. 10.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. and Schwartz, Anna J. 1963b. A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960. Princeton: Princeton University Press, for NBER.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. and Schwartz, Anna J. 1982. Monetary Trends in the United States and the United Kingdom. Their Relation to Income, Prices, and Interest Rates, 1867–1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for NBER.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. and Schwartz, Anna J. and Wallis, W. Allen. 1942. “The Empirical Derivation of Indifference Functions.” In Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics, in Memory of Henry Schultz, edited by Oscar, Lange, Francis, Mclntyre, and Yntema, Theodore O., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. and Schwartz, Anna J. and Wallis, W. Allen. and Savage, L. J. 1948. “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk.” Journal of Political Economy (08).Google Scholar
Gordon, Robert J. (editor). 1974. Milton Friedman's Monetary Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helm, Dieter. 1984. “Predictions and Causes: A Comparison of Friedman and Hicks on Method.” Oxford Economic Papers (11), Supplement.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, David F., and Ericsson, Neil R. 1983. “Assertion without Empirical Basis: An Econometric Appraisal of ‘Monetary Trends in … the United Kingdom, ’ by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz.” Mimeo.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A., and de Marchi, Neil. 1985. “The Methodology of Positive Economics as Via Media. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Klant, J. J. 1984. The Rules of the Came. The Logical Structure of Economic Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Latsis, S. J. (editor). 1976. Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uskali, Maki. 1984. “Rhetoric at the Expense of Coherence: A Reinterpretation of Milton Friedman's Methodology.” Mimeo.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1985. “The Loss Function Has Been Mislaid: The Rhetoric of Significance Tests.” American Economic Review 75 (05), 201–5.Google Scholar
SirPopper, Karl R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Salant, Walter. 1942. “The Inflationary Gap: Meaning and Significance for Policy Making.” American Economic Review 32 (06), 308–14.Google Scholar
Schultz, Henry. 1938. The Theory and Measurement of Demand. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stein, Jerome L. (editor). 1976. Monetarism. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Tobin, James. 1965. “The Monetary Interpretation of History (A Review Article).” American Economic Review 55 (06), 464–85. In Essays in Economics. Vol. 1, by Tobin, J.. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Tobin, James. 1970. “Money and Income: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 (05), 301–17. Rejoinder, same issue, 328–29.Google Scholar
Tobin, James. 1971. Essays in Economics. Vol. 1: Macroeconomics. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Wood, John H. 1981. “The Economics of Professor Friedman.” In Essays in Contemporary Fields of Economics: In Honor of Emanuel T. Weiler (1914–1979), edited by Horwich, George and Quirk, James P.. Lafayette, W., Indiana: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar