SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:09:55 -0700
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: "Inside Job" and code of ethics for economists
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From:
mason gaffney <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (19 lines) 
Rob Tye writes:

"But it is interesting to consider the question, why compare economists to
recent US presidents?  Why not say, Professors of Pure Mathematics?  For I
think only a satirist would suggest an oath of truthfulness even needful,
regarding Pure Maths."

The name "Lobachevsky" comes to mind. 
"The new math" - that became a political football.
Darwin, pro and con, is as political as they come. Malthus? Eugenics?
Anthropogenic global warming? Medicine? Pest control? Lysenko?
Astronomy? Geocentrism surely died hard.

No, purity of motive and freedom from prejudice hardly can be assumed in any
discipline.

Regretfully,
Mason Gaffney

ATOM RSS1 RSS2