SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Médaille <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:59:04 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
Roy Weintraub wrote:
>I'm confused. What does this have to do with the 
>history of economics? Why would an historian of 
>science care about which kind of reserve requirement is "best?

Possibly because there is no way to look at 
history except through the lens of some theory? 
There is not a free-floating "objective" history 
"out there," but only particular accounts that 
involve some particular interpretive stance? 
Perhaps because in order to interpret the events 
of 1929--or of 2009--one has to have some 
conceptual framework? How can one pronounce on 
how a system--say a monetary system--did work 
without some idea of how it ought to work?

John C. Médaille

ATOM RSS1 RSS2