==================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
Contrary to Patrick Gunning (and contrary to the dogma of most 
intellectuals at the turn of the century), I would suggest that our 
understanding is better grounded and communicated in examples 
than it is in definitions (see, e.g., the arguments of Thomas Kuhn 
in his _The Essential Tension_, or contrast the views on language of 
Wittgenstein and that of Plato, Hobbes, Russell, or most analytic 
philosophers).  However, I would also suggest that the best examples 
of the history of science in other fields support Gunning's own 
picture (and examples) of good work in the history of economics -- 
e.g., the work of Michael Ghiselin and Ernst Mayr in the history of 
Darwinian Biology.  I'm still waiting for an argument explaining why 
the work of Ghiselin and Mayr isn't a legitimate form of the history of 
science. 
 
Greg Ransom 
Dept. of Philosophy 
UC-Riverside 
[log in to unmask] 
http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm 
 
================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]