Friedman and Machlup on the Significance of Testing Economic Assumptions

Melitz, Jacques (1965): Friedman and Machlup on the Significance of Testing Economic Assumptions. Published in: Journal of Political Economy , Vol. 73, (1965): pp. 37-60.

Abstract

This article questions Milton Friedman’s methodological position in a famous essay dating to 1948 where he questions the validity of tests of the assumptions of economic theory. Valid tests, he maintains, by and large, concern the empirical implications of hypotheses derived from the theory. The truth or falsehood of assumptions is “largely irrelevant.” In response, this article argues that Friedman’s position is questionable but for different reasons depending on the nature of the assumptions. “Auxiliary assumptions” concern the environment in which the test is supposed to take place. “Generative assumptions” concern the postulates or theorems from which the hypothesis is derived. If auxiliary assumptions are false, all test results bear less weight, whether are confirmatory or disconfirmatory. If generative assumptions are false, positive results confer less confirmation on the hypothesis. The article further questions Friedman’s famous proposal to treat the assumptions of economic theory as “as if” statements, which are not really supposed true but simply taken for granted. The article goes on to question a related one by Fritz Machlup agreeing with Friedman about the irrelevance of tests of “generative assumptions.” Unlike Friedman, however, Machlup stands on the authority of philosophers of science, who, he claims, maintain that theoretical postulates in science should be regarded as “rules” that must be followed.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Methodology, History of thought
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General

References

Alexander, Gavin H. (1958). “General Statements as Rule of Inference?” in Herbert Feigl, Michael Scriven, and Grover Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem (Minneapolis), 309-29.

Archibald, George C. (1959). “The State of Economic Science”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, X (May), 58-69.

Archibald, George C. (1961). “Chamberlin versus Chicago”, Review of Economic Studies, XXIX (October), 2-28.

Archibald, George C. (1963a). “Discussion”, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, LIII (May), 227-29.

Archibald, George C. (1963b). “Reply to Chicago”, Review of Economic Studies, XXX (February), 68-71.

Baumol, William J. (1959). Business Behavior, Value and Growth (New-York).

Braithwaite, Richard B. (1953). “Scientific Explanation: A Study of the Function of Theory, Probability of a direct test”, Scientific Explanation: A Study of the Function of Theory, Probability and Law in Science (London), 12-13.

Carnap, Rudolf (1939). “Foundations of Logic and Mathematics”, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, I, n° 3, 61-67.

Clarkson, Geoffrey P.E. (1963). The Theory of Consumer Demand: A Critical Appraisal (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.).

Friedman, Milton (1948). “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago), 3-43.

Friedman, Milton (1963). “More on Archibald versus Chicago”, Review of Economic Studies, XXX (February), 65-67.

Hempel, Carl G. (1952). “Typological Method in the Social and Natural Sciences”, American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, Vol. I, Science, Language, and Human Rights (Philadelphia).

Hempel, Carl G. (1958a). “The Theoretician’s Dilemma : A Study in the Logic of Theory Construction”, in Herbert Feigl, Michael Scriven, and Grover Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. II, Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem (Minneapolis), 41-46.

Hempel, Carl G. (1958b). “Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation”, in Herbert Feigl and Grover Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III, Scientific Explanation, Space and Time (Minneapolis), 110-13.

Hempel, Carl G. and Paul Oppenheim (1953). “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”, Philosophy of Science, XV (1948), 135-75 ; reprinted and abridged under the brief title of “Logic of Explanation” in Herbert Feigl and May Brodbeck (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (New York), 319-52.

Hutchinson, Terence W. (1938). The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory (London).

Hutchinson, Terence W. (1956). “Professor Machlup on Verification in Economic”, Southern Economic Journal, XXII (April), 476-83.

Kaufmann, Felix (1944). Methodology of the Social Sciences (London).

Keynes, John Neville (1891). “On the Deductive Methods in Political Economy,” in The Scope and Method of Political Economy (London), ch. vii, 204-35.

Klappholz, Kurt and Joseph Agassi (1959). “Methodological Prescriptions in Economics”, Economica, XXVI (February), 60-74.

Koopmans, Tjalling C. (1957). Three Essays on the State of Economic Science (New-York), 135-42.

Machlup, Fritz (1955). “The Problem of Verification in Economics,” Southern Economic Journal, XXII (July), 1-21.

Machlup, Fritz (1956). “Rejoinder to a Reluctant Ultra-empiricist”, Southern Economic Journal, XXII (April, 1956), 483-93.

Machlup, Fritz (1960). “Operational Concepts and Mental Constructs in Model and Theory Formation”, Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, XIX (September-October), 553-82.

Machlup, Fritz (1963). Essays on Economic Semantics (Englewood Cliff, N.J.).

Machlup, Fritz, Terence W. Hutchison and Emile Grunberg (1959). II Problema della Verifica in Economia (Milan).

Marshall, Alfred (1961) Principles of Economics (London), 1st ed., 1890.

McConnell, Campbell R. (1955). “Advocacy versus Analysis in Economic”, Southern Economic Journal, XXII (October), 155-56.

Mill, John Stuart (1844). “On the Definition of Political Economy, and the Method of Investigation Proper to It”, Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy (London, 1844), written in 1829-30 and appearing first in the London and Westminster Review, October, 1836.

Nagel, Ernest (1956). Logic without Metaphysics (Glencoe, III.).

Nagel, Ernest (1963). “Assumptions in Economic Theory”, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, LIII (May), 211-19.

Papandreou, Andreas G. (1958). Economics as a Science (Chicago).

Papandreou, Andreas G. (1963). “Theory Construction and Empirical Meaning in Economics”, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, LIII (May), 205-10.

Pareto, Vilfredo (1896-97). Cours d’économie politique (Lausanne).

Pareto, Vilfredo (1927). Manuel d’économie politique, trans. Alfred Bonnet (2d ed., Paris), 1st ed [Italian], 1996.

Rotwein, Eugene (1959). “On The Methodology of Positive Economics”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXXIII (November), 554-75.

Samuelson, Paul (1963). “Discussion”, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, LIII (May) 231-36.

Schoeffler, Sidney (1955). The Failures of Economics: A Diagnostic Study (Cambridge, Mass).

Senior, Nassau W. (1875). An Outline of the Science of Political Economy (London), 77, 88-89, 1st ed., 1857.

Sidgwick, Henry (1901). The Principles of Political Economy (3d ed., London), 1st ed., 1883.

Sidgwick, Henry (1913). “Political Economy: Method” in R.H.I. Palgrave (ed.), Dictionary of Political Economy, III (2d ed.; London), 1st ed., 1899.

Simon, Herbert (1963). “Discussion”, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, LIII (May), 229-31.

Toulmin, Stephen (1954). “The Philosophy of Science”, in Mind, LXIII (July), 403-12.

Veblen, Thorsten (1898). “Why Economics Is Not an Evolutionary Science,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. XII, reprinted in The Place of Science in Modern Civilization and Other Essays (New-York, 1912), 56-81.

Wicksell, Knut (1934). Lectures on Political Economy, trans. E. Classen; ed. with Introduction by Lionel Robbins (London), 1st ed. of Vol. I (Swedish), 1901.

Wootton, Barbara (1938). Lament for Economics (London).