About the character of historical scholarship, I have this curiosity: does 
   the cat kill the curiosity? Is it a sign of historical scholarship that the 
   scholar merely provides a reprint of the original authors in a comparative 
   chronology of how the thoughts changed, without exercising any judgment as 
   to whether errors were made? If the feline were merely to collect dead mice 
   and sort them in order of the date of death, with no curiosity as to the 
   erroneous ways of the mouse, and without an ability to catch them in their 
   stray movements, I think it is too dull for me. I want to be the kind of cat 
   that now and then chases the erroneous mouse. 
 
   For example, if it is not distasteful to the noble souls here, I wish to 
   put  Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Marx, Jevons,  Menger, Marshall, Fisher, 
   Keynes, Samuelson, Arrow, Friedman, Solow, Debreu and Lucas on trial on the 
   same charge of unrealism, except that they made the unreality various and 
   virtuous. My vicious target is to cultivate the vice of realism. 
 
   Now, do I belong here? Is it the community of gatherers who do not hunt? Or 
   am I clicking the wrong mouse? 
 
   Mohammad Gani