I seem to recall that sometime back in the early 60s Paul Samuelson wrote that research in the history of economic thought was a pointless indulgence best reserved for one's dotage.  Then, in the mid-80s he started publishing HOT articles like the embarrassingly simple-minded "Canonical Classical Model"--thus, apparently attempting to prove his thesis by example.
   
As Kuhn argued, so long as "normal science" seems to be doing the job of explanation, such an insular view can be expected to be generally held.  The problem for its practitioners arises when "normal science" is no longer adequate to its task.  Frankly, I think we're there now.  What I see in the "mainstream" is floundering in the face of an inability either to anticipate or explain recent economic developments like the problems in the housing sector.  Some heterodox economists were explaining its inevitability two years ago, just as some anticipated the decline in 2000.
   
We just have to be patient with the blindness of the so-called "scientific" economists until the revolution.

Samuel Bostaph