I'm surprised at how many are willing to grant the premise here, accepting   
that HET is simply a "history of error."   Sraffa's study of Ricardo was   
essential to his economics.  What he saw was that parts of Ricardo's work -   
such as the search for an "absolute measure" of value - could be profitably   
read not as terrible answers to the questions modern economists were   
asking, but as good answers to different questions altogether, questions   
that moderns might benefit form thinking about.  There are alternate   
possible rational reconstructions of a thinker's work,  only one of which   
is the Whig version. And these alternatives may advance our knowledge of   
economics.  
  
Kevin Quinn