dc.contributor.author |
Hoover, Kevin Douglas |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2010-03-09T15:23:10Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2010-03-09T15:23:10Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
1984 |
|
dc.identifier.citation |
Hoover, Dr Kevin. Methodology: A Comment on Frazer and Boland, II. The American Economic
Review. 74. 4 (September 1984). 789-792. Print.
|
|
dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/1724 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1805148 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
In a recent issue of "The American Economic Review (1983), William Frazer and Lawrence
Boland present Milton Friedman's methodology as instrumentalism. The purpose of article
is not to question Frazer and Boland's interpretation of Friedman; rather it is to
question their accompanying assertion that instrumentalism is a sound methodology
for short-run, practical policy purposes. According to Frazer and Boland, Friedman's
essay calls "attention to the great relevance of positive economics for normative
economics. The question was which policy should be selected. The promise of instrumentalism
to Frazer and Boland is that it provides an effective method for answering this question.
It does so by dissolving or ignoring the problem of induction and is as a method free
from logical errors. Boland uses conventionalist criteria (for Friedman simplicity
and fruitfulness) to select a theory to use for a particular occasion. This theory
is free from logical error. It is alogical; the first two steps ensure that logic
is barely relevant to it.
|
|
dc.format.extent |
300854 bytes |
|
dc.format.mimetype |
application/pdf |
|
dc.language.iso |
en_US |
|
dc.publisher |
American Economic Association |
|
dc.title |
Methodology: A Comment on Frazer and Boland, II |
|
dc.type |
Journal article |
|
dc.relation.journal |
The American Economic Review |
|