pull down to refresh

While Friedman never made a public statement about this regret, McCloskey’s account suggests he may have been dissatisfied with the consequences of the methodological tradition he helped establish.
In his later years, Friedman’s intellectual interests seemed to shift. He grew closer to economists like Friedrich Hayek, whose methodological views often diverged from the mainstream. While Friedman acknowledged the utility of mathematical tools in economic analysis, he was never as fervent a champion of formalism as Paul Samuelson was.
Fascinating. I think my own intellectual journey may have paralleled Friedman's in a sense.
I was attracted to the mathematical formalism of economics. That's what hooked me in the first place.
But later, having worked in the field for over a decade, I am somewhat jaded by it and no longer attracted to formal mathematical models.
I still think they have their uses, but the weight assigned to them by the profession is out of proportion to their utility (in comparison to less mathematical modes of debate)
Yes that was the big draw of praxeology from the beginning. Although a lot of people do not like the a priori method of starting points, however you have to start the reasoning chain somewhere and this is the most solid anchor. To me, anyway, I saw a lot of the mathematical type economics come to some very unsettling conclusions. It took another way of thinking about economics to satisfy my curiosity.
reply
Taking the con out of econometrics?
reply
Yes, you could say that. Taking the mics away, too.
reply