Friedman’s methodology deliberately left room for professional judgment over mechanical rules

Evidence

Just as there is no unitary “scientific method,” faithful following of which guarantees scientific advances, there is not likely to be a productive, rule-like economic methodology. For example, Friedman noted that the “rules for using [a] model … cannot possibly be abstract and complete.” How the “entities in [a] model” are to be connected to “observable phenomena … can be learned only by experience and exposure in the right' scientific atmosphere, not by rote" (1953a, p. 25). And on page 9 of the 1953 essay he inserted a crucial parenthetical phrase into the passage putting forward falsificationism, writing that a hypothesis should be "rejected if its predictions are contradicted (frequently’ or more often than predictions from an alternative hypothesis)” a formulation that left room for the exercise of professional judgment. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 59

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Applying economic models requires tacit professional judgment, not fixed rules.; Friedman’s methodology resists tidy philosophical classification — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 55; Rules prescribe mechanical actions while principles guide reflective judgment — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 993 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Applying economic models requires tacit professional judgment, not fixed rules. #corroborates (0.90)
• Rules prescribe mechanical actions while principles guide reflective judgment #expands (0.85) — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 993
• Friedman’s methodology resists tidy philosophical classification #expands (0.80) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 55
• Enforcement discretion makes written rules differ from actual practice #exemplifies (0.75) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 55