Friedman’s positive-normative economics boundary cannot be trusted at face value

Evidence

Hence, one cannot take at face value some of the writings of Milton Friedman, for instance, on the boundaries between “positive” and “normative” economics. For more on this issue, see Van Horn and Mirowski, Chapter 4 in this volume. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1620

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: the claim implies Friedman’s methodological professions were strategically framed rather than neutral — a historiographical point to verify against Van Horn and Mirowski.
• XREF: connects to: Friedman deliberately balanced utopian ideals against incremental politically feasible proposals — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 493; Friedman claimed positive economics could resolve policy disputes by eliminating value differences — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free…, 405; Samuelson’s mathematized economics rivaled Friedman’s instrumentalist methodology — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 57 (+5 more)