----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Yuval Yonay has moved this discussion into productive areas for  
historians of economics. We need to think back on Lakatos's argument  
that any philosophy of science instantiates its preferred history of  
science, and alternative historiographical positions will construct  
histories with conflicting valorizations. Winners and losers will depend  
on who is doing the writing, and to what purpose of course.   
 
What can we reconstruct of the position, and implicit historiography,  
or those who seek to rank "Great Economists"?  To me it seems  
consistent with OTSOG-ery, the on-the-shoulders-of-giants stuff much  
beloved of Nobel Committees. Alternatively a Popperian would ask  
about the great falsificationist moves (but Blaug says there are none in  
economics), a Kuhnian would ask ""Was there a revolution, and who  
did it?" (but Kuhn thought there were none in economics), a strong  
program STS historian would ask ...   
 
E. Roy Weintraub 
Duke University 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]