Steve Kates in his post on the Economist debate on Keynesianism said :
(4) "The history of economics is a necessary part of economics. "

In response to that Leonidas Montes posted the Cambridge piece on the 
need for plurality of modes of reasoning in economics.  Both ideas 
are not welcome by mainstream economics as we know it. Here's is an 
interesting comment from Professor John H. Cochrane, of Chicago 
University as a guest on the economist debate on Keynesianism:

"Of course we are not all Keynesians now. Economics is, or at least 
tries to be, a science, not a religion. Economic understanding does 
not lie in a return to eternal verities written down in long , 
convoluted old books, or in the wisdom of fondly remembered sages, 
whether Keynes, Friedman or even Smith himself. Economics is a live 
and active discipline, and it is no disrespect to Keynes to say that 
we have learned a lot in 70 years. Let us stop talking about labels 
and appealing to long dead authorities. Let us instead apply the best 
of modern economics to talk about what has a chance of working in the 
present situation and why. "

And Chicago school economics is not a religion?

Sumitra Shah