> must I have read *every word* ever written by  
someone  
> before I can express an opinion on his work?  Or is  
> that enough?  must I be able to  
> instantly recollect edition and page number - and  
> library box and reference number?      
> To ask him to desist from discussing Mises, simply  
> because he modestly  
> acknowledges his imperfect knowledge of Mises, is to  
> ask all of us to  
> desist from discussing everything.  
>   
> Prabhu Guptara  
  
This is a strawman argument. Without a photographic  
memory no scholar can meet this standard of 'instant  
recollection' of 'every page number' in 'every  
edition'. Virtually every scholar of Mises, Smith,  
Keynes, Marx, or anyone else has imperfect knowledge.   
  
What is at issue here is the tendency of some to bash  
scholars about whom they know very little. I have  
heard some scholars bash Mises and Hayek in ways that  
make absolutely no sense. For example, at the HES last  
summer someone mirespresented Hayek by claiming that  
the Road to Serfdom argued that any small step towards  
intervention would lead to a Hitlerean society. I  
confronted this person afterwards, and he admitted  
that he really did not know much about the RTS.  
  
I am sure that others have bashed Marx, Keynes, and  
Veblen without really undertanding them. Personally, I  
avoid criticizing Marx precisely because I know  
relatively little about his system.    
  
One need not acquire superhuman knowledge of Mises to  
comment on his system. Problems do arise when someone  
attacks the work of Mises (or any other famous  
scholar) with only a superficial or biased knowledge  
of his work.   
  
DW MacKenzie