Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:34 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
Yuval Yonay has moved this discussion into productive areas for
historians of economics. We need to think back on Lakatos's argument
that any philosophy of science instantiates its preferred history of
science, and alternative historiographical positions will construct
histories with conflicting valorizations. Winners and losers will depend
on who is doing the writing, and to what purpose of course.
What can we reconstruct of the position, and implicit historiography,
or those who seek to rank "Great Economists"? To me it seems
consistent with OTSOG-ery, the on-the-shoulders-of-giants stuff much
beloved of Nobel Committees. Alternatively a Popperian would ask
about the great falsificationist moves (but Blaug says there are none in
economics), a Kuhnian would ask ""Was there a revolution, and who
did it?" (but Kuhn thought there were none in economics), a strong
program STS historian would ask ...
E. Roy Weintraub
Duke University
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|