I doubt anybody on this list is confused about the differences involved among evaluating a
HES list-posting, a journal article, or a tenure/promotion-file. The decline of
institutionally supported interest by economists in their own history is (probably) to be
lamented, but it cannot be attributed to people pursuing their interest in precursors on
this list. Moreover, the proper response to this decline is not the policing of the HES
list with an appeal to the standards of a certain -- and it should be added,
institutionally fragile as well as, in my humble judgment, intellectually nearly spent --
flavor of science studies. I understand and respect Prof. Weintraub's decision to try to
professionalize and make safe the study of the history of economics in economics
departments by aligning himself with this approach. It does, however, not seem to have
changed many minds in economics departments and, if the (rather negative) response by
science departments to the science studies crowd
 is any indication, this is, in fact, a disastrous institutional strategy. Prof.
Weintraub's continued over-reactions to other approaches than his to the history of
economics no doubt contribute, in small part, to the perception that history of economics
is not a potentially flourishing activity. (And any flourishing intellectual community
should allow lists like this to be a shared resource for many different kinds of threads.)
I thought many of the plenary lectures at HES 2003 at Duke suffered from this
methodological straight-jacket and showed many of the usual pitfalls of the mutual back-
scratching of well-connected insiders. (Perhaps others found it refreshing, so be it.)
Prof Weintraub's efforts to make his peers in history of economics toe his methodological
lines is, in  my view, self-defeating, although this is an empirical matter. Of course, I
recognize and admire his energy in doing so. I think it is valuable activity unless it
results in history of economics being a
 mono-culture, especially one that is about a decade or two behind trends in the study of
the history of science. The approach to history of science that Prof. Weintraub is
promoting within history of economics was already old-hat within history and philosophy of
science departments when I entered graduate school in the mid 90s. (Incidentally, if
Amazon sales figures are any indication, there is far more interest in the Academy in the
writings of Isaiah Berlin than Theodore M. Porter.) Kuhn's legacy will (hopefully)
continue to inspire, but it is not the last word on these matters.
   
Far better, I suspect, is to encourage excellence in many different approaches to history
of economics and when possible drawing in historians, philosophers, social theorists,
gender studies, political theorists, literary critics, rational choice/game-theorists,
psychologists, and, yes, economists. The way to draw interest to a declining area of study
is to generate interesting and exciting intellectual debates; to be open to outsiders
entering the field; to be opportunistic in institutional alliances, etc. History of
economics offers many such opportunities, and in light of its impact on the "real world"
will continue to attract interest, admiration, and criticism from many quarters. Perhaps
economists will notice it again once promising and ambitious scholars of other fields have
explored its many fruits.
   
Finally, it takes hard work to get one's peers interested in history in many departments,
and philosophy is no exception. I suspect that being a historian/philosopher of economics
is no less lonely in a philosophy department than in an economics department. It means one
has to be versatile marketer of one's area of interest and show a willingness to appeal to
many different kinds of taste. It requires intellectual flexibility to provide added value
to many different kinds of audiences. (In my own work I try to reach other Early Modern
philosophers, historians of science, historians of economics, historians of social theory,
philosophers of science and social science, and moral philosophers--it is not easy to stay
Au courant with so many different conversations.) Having the words "Adam Smith" or
"economics" on my CV hurts my career opportunities on a regular basis (at least in short-
term). Many on this list have helped me find a (partial) intellectual home in the HES
community. In
 turn, it is exciting to be able to call my philosophic peers' attention to important work
being done on parts of the history of philosophy and/or science by (orthodox and
unorthodox) historians of economics (e.g., Phil Mirowski, David Levy, John Davis, Leon
Montes, Spencer Pack, Kevin Quinn, Mary Morgan. Marcel Boumans, Kevin Hoover, etc). I bet
that if history of economics has no future in economics departments (and why should it?),
my more tolerant approach is far more promising.
   
Best,  
  
Eric Schliesser