I kept out of the economic fallacy debate, but Lars' excellent post  
provides, in my view, an answer to Roy's query as to whether such  
discussions belong on the HES listserve.  I think they do when they are  
informed by a history of the field, and often the history of the field  
can add insight to such questions, and the asking of such questions can  
add insight into economists' understanding of thinking in a particular  
period.   
  
In considering fallacies, Classical economists (such as JN Keynes)  
distinguished precepts--which were part of the art of economics--from  
theorems--which were part of the science (positive economics) Precepts  
involved policy judgments and were based on certain believed to be  
generally accepted normative views--along with empirical judgments.  
Economist's precepts could differ from the views on policy that were  
being expressed by others, and that would involve one type of fallacy.  
Theorems were logical conclusions from first principles. Given the  
acceptance of the first principles, the theorems follow--they would  
involve a different type of fallacy, and could occur because a person  
did not accept the first principle--or because the person got the logic  
wrong.  So there are many dimensions of fallacies, and because of that,  
it is difficult to create any defensible list. Thus, the lists that are  
arrived at at a particular time are a backward induction way of teasing  
out what the methodological views of the time are, which is how I think  
Lars is using them.   
  
Dave Colander