BibTeX
@MISC{Few_currentviews,
author = {Lawrence Boland Few and Lawrence A. Bol},
title = {Current Views on Economic Positivism},
year = {}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
2--5, emphasis added]. Unfortunately, the widespread reliance on the `is/ought' dichotomy has nullified Neville Keynes' best efforts to improve our understanding of positive economics. While promoting `positive methodology' in his famous 1953 essay, Milton Friedman tried to deny the `is/ought' dichotomy by arguing that answers to `ought' questions necessarily depend on a prior establishment of `what is'. Nevertheless, most critics of Friedman's methodology think he was arguing against normative economics and thus assume that he was only arguing in favour of positive economics [e.g., Koopmans 1957, Rotwein 1959, Samuelson 1963 and Simon 1963]. The presumption seems to be that one must always choose between `is' and `ought' questions as if they are inherently mutually exclusive. To be fair, there is a good reason to presume that `is' and `ought' questions are mutually exclusive. David Hume had long ago argued that `ought' statements cannot be deduced from `is' statements and vice versa
