Samuelson’s mathematized economics rivaled Friedman’s instrumentalist methodology

Evidence

Ultimately, though, Friedman’s “Methodology of Positive Economics” was oriented not to the philosophy of science but to economics,” and his stance provoked sharp debate within the profession. The best-known opponent of Friedman’s position was Paul Samuelson, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. With Foundations of Economic Analysis (1947) and other works, Samuelson played a big part in the mathematicization of economics in the postwar United States. He wrote the discipline’s definitive postwar textbook (Economics, which sold some 4 million copies”), and in 1970 he was the third recipient of the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 57

Categorization

• XREF: The Friedman-Samuelson controversy is a recurring axis in later chapters on finance theory; also connects to the reader’s financialization literature. — connects to: Friedman’s positive economics defended Marshall’s engine-like analytic approach — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 1392; Friedman’s positive-normative economics boundary cannot be trusted at face value — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1620; Economic theories function as analytic engines rather than exact copies of reality. (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Economic theories function as analytic engines rather than exact copies of reality. #corroborates (0.78)
• Friedman’s positive economics defended Marshall’s engine-like analytic approach #qualifies (0.75) — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera, 1392
• Friedman’s positive-normative economics boundary cannot be trusted at face value #complicates (0.72) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1620