----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
13 Oct 2003, E. Roy Weintraub wrote, in part: 
. . . 
> We would not preclude a history of a heterodox "take" on a subject, 
> but heterodox economics is not, itself, historical scholarship. 
> (See the first HES-List editorial in which I made a case about the 
> standards we should use to appraise research in the history of 
> economics.) 
 
To read the editorial by Roy Weintraub, or any other, visit the History 
of Economics website (http://eh.net/HE) and select "Guest Editorials". 
The editorials are listed by author, title, date.  Each one is published 
with marginal links to the discussion that occurred on this list. 
 
 
13 Oct 2003, Manoel Galdino replied, in part, by describing an opinion 
that is common among Brazilian economists: 
. . . 
> history of economic thought is merely the study of anticipations and 
> errors of the present theory by the older economists. In this point of 
> view, it makes no sense to study this subject. 
 
Several of the Guest Editorials pertain to that interpretation or to that 
sort of history.  The one that generated the most discussion 7 years ago 
is James Henderson, "Whig History of Economics is Dead -- Now What?". 
 
 
ARCHIVES 
To use the archive of all HES list traffic, visit the History of Economics 
website (http://eh.net/HE) and select "List Archives". 
 
Enter a year and month such as '1996' and 'September' and then "open", or 
enter a keyword such as 'legitimate' or '"iron law"' and then "search". 
 
The search will find articles that use the keyword or keywords.  Thus a 
search for 'historiography' will find this article but will miss most 
historiographical articles because their authors did not use that word. 
 
--Paul 
 
Paul Wendt, Watertown MA, USA <[log in to unmask]> 
Subscriptions manager, HES email list 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]