ABSTRACT
Many years ago in a philosophy journal I noted that ‘all economists can be divided into two groups-those who agree with Milton Friedman…and those who do not’ [Boland 1970]. I was attempting to capture the culture surrounding
the usual methodology discussions of the 1960s. That culture, in which I was a participant-observer, was one that could only sneer at Friedman’s methodology and rejoice in Samuelson’s efforts to make jokes at Friedman’s expense. At the time I accepted this as good ‘college humor’. What I did not understand was that this humor was merely a polite symptom of a more deep-seated hostility founded on perceived ideological difference between the so-called Chicago school and everyone else. As a close follower of Popper, I knew that fair criticism must always begin with a clear understanding of what one wishes to criticize. Examining the major critiques I was quite disappointed. A careful reading of Friedman’s essay from the perspective of Karl Popper’s philosophy of science convinced me that none of the critics presented a fair, logically adequate criticism. They merely criticized various invented caricatures of Friedman’s essay.
