Mohammad asks whether we should "not look at the ideas we adopt today   
and see if these have flaws that require repairs?" Indeed, how else   
could one define the term "error"? And how else could one distinguish a   
dead relic from a dead duck?  
  
But errors in economics are not like broken down cars or toasters. We   
can tell by looking whether a car or a toaster needs repair. Not so with   
economics, I'm afraid. Who sets the standards that determine whether an   
idea in economics is broken of fixed? Other HESers? The voice of   
authority? Or might it just be possible, contrary to the views of many   
on the list, that there is a definition of economics that can pass the   
science test? If there is, it is doubtful that HESers, as the subject's   
course is now being steered, will ever determine what it is.  
  
So I would say that to do a history of error, one must either (1) depart   
from the course that is now being steered or (2), as I suggested before,   
study only self-acknowledged error. That is, if one uses the term   
"error" in its accepted meaning.  
  
Which raises the question. What do the contributors to this thread have   
in mind when they write of studying the history of error? Can anyone   
give me an example of an error? How about Marx or the labor theory of   
value? Is that what you some of you have in mind? Or is this just one of   
those angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin, ivory tower discussions?  
  
Pat Gunning