As we have both stated our views at some length, I will just briefly
clarify a couple of points.

I do not see myself as succumbing to conventional views on "science".
My main point is that we have learned from SSK and from the history of
science, that David's science/art distinction is fundamentally flawed.
Natural science, aside from what Kuhn called "normal science" is has
characteristics that David links with art. Thus I don't want to use
the distinction because I don't consider it serviceable.

In drawing attention to current attitudes towards science, I was
merely pointing out that the effect of introducing the science/art
distinction is to provide an additional argument with which to defend
a narrow view of economics. I do not see it as a strong, or even
legitimate argument. This just reinforces my view that the distinction
should not be used.

This, of course, is methodology. Applying the science/art distinction
to history raises a different set of issues I will not go into.

Roger