[In case we are about to launch into a discussion on good and bad science, as moderator, I
ask that you remember that this is a list for History of Economics.  I do not mean to cut
off conversation, but everyone on the list would appreciate your help in keeping the
discussion within our bounds. Thank you. HB]
  
  
Albert Himoe wrote:  
>This is very odd. Does Hammond really wish to  
>imply that due to "science" or the "romance with  
>science", we know LESS about human nature that we knew before?  
  
We know less if the science is bad and the romance misdirected.  
  
  
>Has science subtracted from the total sum of knowledge on human nature?!  
>Has all the effort to partition nature and  
>nuture by experimental psychology been in vain,  
>or worse? This is hard to believe.  
  
  
Well, it's not impossible. Freud was all the rage  
for decades as an explantion of human actions,  
but he hasn't been taught in graduate schools of  
psychology for 30 years. So yes, bad science  
decreases our knowledge, not increases it.  
  
John C. Medaille