This essay tries to explain and evaluate Friedman’s arguments about the way in which economic theories should be evaluated by considering both his views as well as other economist’s views’. Throughout the essay, I will be analysing different aspects from Musgrave’s categories; Negligibility, Domain and Heuristic assumptions. Friedman stated that we use theories to perceive “facts”, and we are not able to perceive “facts” without a theory (Friedman, 1966), which has a contradictory element behind it as it highlights the difference between positive and normative economies. By the end of the essay, I would have established whether astronomers were or were not following a method like Friedman’s in the shift from Ptolemy’s “Earth Centric” model of
…show more content…
Some astronomers followed different methods, in particular, the shift from Ptolemy’s “Earth Centric” model of the Universe to Copernicus’s “Sun Centric” model. Ptolemy suggested that the earth was stationary and it was near but not quite at the center of the universe, however, Copernicus assumed that the sun is the center of the universe and everything orbits the sun on circular orbits including Earth. There is a correlation with certain astronomers because of their different understandings which had been criticized. Modern day astronomers said “it worked beautifully, but it was all wrong”, and went on to say that “the idea that you can predict something doesn’t mean that you understand the fundamental purposes of it”. (Steve Keen, 2015.) This can be related back to Friedman’s arguments because even though he made assumptions about his theories, the criticisms led to them being shifted. This also links to the shift from Ptolemy’s “Earth Centric” model of the Universe to Copernicus’s “Sun Centric” model because there were many flaws which were found in Ptolemy’s model which led to the shift to Copernicus’s
Some astronomers followed different methods, in particular, the shift from Ptolemy’s “Earth Centric” model of the Universe to Copernicus’s “Sun Centric” model. Ptolemy suggested that the earth was stationary and it was near but not quite at the center of the universe, however, Copernicus assumed that the sun is the center of the universe and everything orbits the sun on circular orbits including Earth. There is a correlation with certain astronomers because of their different understandings which had been criticized. Modern day astronomers said “it worked beautifully, but it was all wrong”, and went on to say that “the idea that you can predict something doesn’t mean that you understand the fundamental purposes of it”. (Steve Keen, 2015.) This can be related back to Friedman’s arguments because even though he made assumptions about his theories, the criticisms led to them being shifted. This also links to the shift from Ptolemy’s “Earth Centric” model of the Universe to Copernicus’s “Sun Centric” model because there were many flaws which were found in Ptolemy’s model which led to the shift to Copernicus’s