----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
I have followed the discussion about the appropriate place for graduate training in the
history of economics with a great deal of interest. One common assumption in the current
discussion is that the history of economics (and/or political economy) only belongs to the
discipline now known as "economics"--even if one accepts or advocates that it can be best
studied with the tools acquired in a history of science or intellectual history program
and one accepts that these programs also offer access to training in the sometimes rather
technical mathematical and conceptual apparatus that enable genuine understanding of the
subject matter studied. (I do worry that some of the leading practitioners of "thick"
history of science outside of history of economics that Roy seems to admire so much
sometimes don't understand the conceptual and mathematical structure of the science they
are talking about. One thing I have found refreshing about the history of economics is
that there is a very high level of technical competency.) But the history of economics
also belongs to the disciplinary history of "philosophy." That is to say, there are
important philosophers (Hume, Marx, Mill, Bentham) whose "philosophy" one cannot fully
understand without serious reflection on their "economics" and some others (Locke,
Rousseau, Aquinas) where neglect of the "economics" at least offers some impoverishment of
one's understanding of their philosophy. (Among trained philosophers, I am still
idiosyncratic in thinking that Adam Smith is also a genuinely interesting philosopher--
even in metaphysics and epistemology.) I don't this is just a historical artifact; it's
clear to me that important, live branches of philosophy (decision theory, game theory,
inductive logic, etc.) are also practiced by philosophers/economists.
 
Unlike perhaps economics or other sciences (progressing/narrowing or not), for many in
philosophy the historical tradition is more than a mere expansion of the literature review
or a source for interesting answers/arguments to our problems. While philosophy is not, I
hope, about appeals to authority, it is, for some of us, about serious critical engagement
with thinkers who can inspire us to re-think our philosophic activities. My own engagement
as a historian of philosophy (sometimes including the history of economics), while mindful
to both the concerns that drive "thick" history as well as fascinated by the clarity that
some rational or anachronistic reconstruction can provide, is guided by my hope that
serious engagement (scholarly or not) with the history of philosophy makes me a better and
more interesting philosopher that can speak to a serious contemporary, philosophic
audience.  Michael Friedman's work on Kant, or Howard Stein's on Newton are useful
exemplars to me. (A lot of contemporary virtue ethics has gained from engagement with
Aristotle.) That is to say, those of us who resist the idea that philosophy is only about
"solving problems" can find engagement with our tradition, which often involves a
reformulation of who should be in or out of that tradition, quite fruitful.
 
Anyway, the history of economics that is produced by people trained in economics
departments and that is informed by such a training can be quite stimulating and
illuminating on many levels. It would be sad if that were to disappear entirely. That is
for the economics profession to decide. But I won't cede the history of economics only to
the historians.
 
Cheers! 
Eric 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]