====================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
[Note from the moderator: This message was posted on Friday and 
mysteriously made it to the archives but not to the subscribers. Apologies 
for possible multiple postings. -- E-MS] 
 
I find the soul searching on this net all very interesting.  How come that 
we 
have to be so preoccupied with a justification for our interest in the 
history of thought?  The answer is obvious: the establishment in our 
profession does not take our work seriously and relegates our sessions at 
the 
AEA meetings to rooms that are hard to find lest we may disturb the main 
proceedings.  Rightly so.  Our colleagues have very good reasons to ignore 
history.  After all, they are in no need of it.  Their rhetoric, their way 
of 
arguing, in terms of mechanistic models, precludes the historical argument. 
History comes in the form of time series.  When they do history, it has to 
be 
cliometric history.  Economists who think and argue this way, have no need 
for history of thought except maybe to get some ideas in the pre-analytic 
phase (the process of discovery), or just for fun (Samuelson's motivation), 
 
Accordingly, as long as the mechanic modeling dominates the economic mode 
of 
reasoning, there is no hope for a serious appreciation of historical work. 
Only when changes will occur at that end can we expect to get serious 
interest for our work from our colleagues. 
 
Arjo Klamer 
Erasmus University 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]