----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
This is a very stimulating discussion. Thanks. 
 
Forstater's question seems premised on the assumption that HET is a field, or subclass,
within economics, as suggested perhaps by the classification system used by the American
Economic Association. Ph. D. Students should be able to major in that subject just as they
major in econometrics or monetary theory. Weintraub's reply states clearly that HET at
Duke is based on the assumption that HET is not a subclass within economics but a useful
part of every economist's knowledge of his particular subject, regardless of field.
 
My own view is based on the assumption that economics is a way of thinking, or a mode of
reasoning. Some of the basic principles required to do this thinking, or reasoning, were
stated best by the dead economists. It follows that if one wants to learn these principles
in the most efficient way, one should study the writings of those masters. (I do not mean
by this that modern economics ("mainstream" if you wish) should not be studied also. My
judgment is quite the contrary.) This seems to suggest that the Duke policy is too
restrictive and also that HET should not be regarded as a field of economics but as an
integral part of every other field. The historian(s) of economic thought in a modern
economics department should be able to provide guidance to students and other faculty in
every major field about where to search for literature on the history of thought in that
field.
 
An economics department seems a sensible place to house the training of historians of
economic thought. But I am not sure that it is the only sensible place or that it is the
best place. Perhaps a history of ideas department (philosophy?) would be a better place.
 
--  
Pat Gunning 
Feng Chia University, Taiwan 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]