Pat  
  
I must say this has all become a bit convoluted and inward. The  
original posting which started this thread off said:  
  
'I have heard here [Harvard] that economists in the Economics  
Department scoff at the history of economics in this question, "Why  
teach the history of error?" And, "Would they teach the history of  
medicine in the Med School?" That seems stupid to me, but these  
fellows are not stupid. How do you answer them?'  
  
You have now written:  
  
'Of course, I do not subscribe to the "notion that the history of economics  
is no more than a history of error," to quote from your message where it  
appears that you imply that I do. And I am pleased to learn that you  
also do not subscribe to this. But is it reasonable to think that anyone  
(including me?) would subscribe to it?'  
  
Well, it seems that some very talented economists at Harvard do  
subscribe to it. And to be quite frank, it never occurred to me that  
you would hold any such view yourself.  
  
I provided the quotation from Robbins as one answer to the original  
query. The point Robbins seems to make, and I agree with him, is that  
if all that they know is from books and articles written within say  
the last twenty years, then they know less than they think they do. I  
brought up Robbins as just one authority who might lend weight to the  
view that there is something in the history of economics that is  
valuable for a practising economist today not found in contemporary  
texts. Why they should believe Robbins, since he is just another DWM  
writing in yet another superseded text now more than fifty years old,  
is quite another matter entirely.  
  
Finally, I will note that the Robbins quotation did have an error that  
Pat noted. It was copied by me and I confess that I did leave off the  
final "s" on "propositions". But it was no paraphrase. It was just  
what Robbins had said.  
  
Steve Kates