I have enjoyed the two communications from Ross Emmett an Mayo Toruno.  The 
distinction between history of economic thought (broader than but inclusive 
of the history of economic theory, but their relationship is another matter) 
and the history of economics is indeed very important. 
 
The history of economic thought/theory is part of intellectual history; the 
history of ideas.  The history of economics is, as Emmett says, part of the 
history of science -- with science an organized, social activity and 
therefore subject to the kind of inquiry which can be devoted to such 
activity, e.g., the sociology of science, professionalization, linguistic 
communities, and so on -- in contrast to envisioning and discussing science 
solely as a mode to Truth. 
 
Notice that focusing on the history of economic thought does not necessarily 
imply an internalist approach; economic thought can be and often is 
influenced by external factors.  Similar, focusing on the history of 
economics does not necessarily imply an externalist approach; the sociology 
(for example) is the small group sociology internal to/constitutive of the 
discipline -- which is part of what Stigler included when he wrote of 
interests internal to the minds of theorists. 
 
The two need not be distinct in practice.  Inquiry into the history of 
economic thought can encompass examination of the sources of ideas; and 
inquiry into the history of economics can encompass such a notion that ideas 
have histories of their own. 
 
For whom are we writing; what are our goals?  I shall not presume to tell 
others what they goals should be.  Each historian has to work that out for 
themself.  I will say that doing history of economic thought and history of 
economics are ventures valuable in themselves.  If such enriches/changes the 
conversation within the larger economicss community, then fine.  But that 
need not be one's goal.  If others want to ignore your work, that is their 
problem, not yours. 
 
Ross writes that conflict within economics has not reached the point where 
the community splits and separate conversations take place.   Alas, I think 
he is wrong, for several reasons:  (1) The huge growth of output and the 
scarcity of time; it simply is impossible to not specialize, which means 
separate conversations.  (2) Members of different schools to engage in 
largely (I do not say wholly) separate conversations; partly because of 
scarcity of time and partly, giving effect to one's exclusionary 
preconceptions.  Etc. 
 
Some of the foregoing indeed raises the question posed by Margaret Schabas, 
whether historians would be better off in history of science etc. 
departments.  Again, I think that each person has to determine this for him- 
or herself.  Personally I can see the advantages and disadvantages both 
ways; but their identification and weight is a matter of personal 
subjectivity (I make the same argument about cost benefit analysis in 
general).  Included in the reckoning are personal identities (most 
historians of economics/economic thought think of themselves are economists 
first, and often work in other subfields in economics; and, inter alia, 
differentiaal salary scales. 
 
I hope that the foregoing is helpful.  Now, as Toruno says, I have to get 
back to (other) work -- all of which I consider much fun (so much for the 
marginal disutility of labor theory!). 
 
Warren J. Samuels 
Michigan State University