Dear Professor Gani ("the cat"), 
 
I must admit to treating past thinkers with a great deal of humility and  
respect.  But this is not unusual.  Even lawyers and prosecutors are asked indeed  
required by  their professional ethical standards to do the same with  
defendants criminal and civil--treat them with dignity and respect.    
 
I think it was Stigler and Robbins before him, who established that norm for  
historians of economics.  That means always trying to understand a thinker in  
the context of his time and making the best possible case for his ideas.   
 
As for "realism," I don't think that you mean that current trend in political  
economy to question whether statistical correlations can reveal what is  
really going on under the flux of everyday life.  I think you are raising the old  
well-worn issue of whether or not theorticians in their efforts to abstract and  
isolate essential types of relationships,  
are committing some sort of sin against common sense understanding.  The word  
"realism" apparently means to you "realistic description" or something like  
that. 
 
In my opinion realistic theories often become mindless descriptions and  
leave the reader perplexed, bewildered and singing the old song "so what did that  
writer say?"  I think abstraction when qualified and presented with scholarly  
honestly is terrific. 
 
Good luck in your efforts to hunt the mice but remember that many mice catch  
only fleas for their efforts.  I hope that your scholarly efforts are more  
valuable than a bag of fleas.  Attitude and respect for the past is a major  
positive element in the search for knowledge.  At least that is what I value about  
the HES network and the attitude of those of us who contribute toward it. 
 
I hope that you can cat--ch up to us in this respect. 
 
Laurence Moss