Talk:Positive economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is totally biased against positive economics, and is basically an argument as to why positive economics is flawed. The article should be mostly rewritten, but I don't know enough about the topic (yet) to do so. LittleDan^talk 04:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know it's biased when you don't know enough of the topic? __earth ^(Talk) 07:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, until I revived the lede from an old version of the article, the page was devoted almost completely to a criticism of positive economics. It is obvious to any casual reader that this is not NPOV. I have marked the criticism of the article as such, and now it is better, but the criticism is completely unbalanced by facts about this issue, and maybe it should be cut down and/or balanced by a more knowledgable author. The criticism section was written by a single anonymous author, who deleted the old contents of the article and wrote about why the concept of positive economics was flawed. LittleDan^talk 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a short section on the wider philosophy of fact / value or positive / normative distinctions. This is important as the debate in economics is essentially a reflection of the wider philosophical debate. I've also included a reference to Gunnar Myrdal, the leading economist to have criticised the use of a positive / normative distinction in economics. The key reference is Myrdal, Gunnar (1954[1929]). The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory, trans. Paul Streeten (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Last paragraph in article helpful but above does not support last sentence in article. Robbins did not reject normative judgments, only palming off normative judgment as science. Who of consequence then has made the link of those accepting the pursuit of positive economics as "being linked to the adoption of logical positivist epistemology in economics." Highly doubtful that Myrdal's book (preceding comment) made that case. So, on that basis, I believe that deletion of last sentence in current revision is warranted. Thomasmeeks 04:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Deleted typo. Thomasmeeks 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Although he tended not to reference it directly as such, the main advocate of a logical positivist epistemology in economics was Milton Friedman. It's since his works that the term 'positive economics' became widely used. Robbins was certainly not a positivist - he adopts a far more rationalist approach to economic methodology. --Nmcmurdo 20:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Have amended the article to reflect that. You're right, Thomas, that the order of the argument in the previous text wasn't perfect. There is of course some debate about whether Friedman was a lock, stock and barrel logical positivist (see e.g. Boland, 1982), but it's difficult to argue that his 1953 work wasn't the main statement of a set of logical positivist ideas in economics (admittedly with some eccentric tweaks, such as the 'F twist'). --Nmcmurdo 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact-Value Distinction

The link to Hillary Putnam was to show that the logical basis of proposition used in economics had been challenged. Putnam didn't discuss its use in economics per se, but the debate in economics over such propositions should be seen in terms of the wider philosophical debate.--Nmcmurdo 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Friedman’s view that “economics as science should be free of normative judgments for it to be respected as objective and to inform….” I believe his use of the word “tautological” was a little verbose, but overall I agree with his views. In further reading, I see that tautology is a term we are going to have to get used to. Anyway, positive economics are scientific and provable. Compared to the other notes in this discussion I obviously know very little about economics.

Lacyg 02:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Lacy Gilstrap Microeconomics ECON 2123 W41