Roy likes to think in extremes. He also apparently does not like people 
who classify themselves as historians of economic thought.

But I would venture to say that none of the people in this class would 
deny that "ideas are human creations and performance of complex social 
acts." Moreover, it seems to me perfectly reasonable, no matter what 
calls oneself,  to deny that sociology, anthropology, and rhetoric have 
anything directly to do with the history of certain ideas. Ricardo's law 
of comparative advantage, for example, is an economic thought that can 
be studied without reference to sociology, etc. One might want to study 
the social, etc. context in which this thought was produced. But one 
might also want to study how this thought was handed down and modified 
or improved upon by subsequent individuals who met the challenge of 
attempting to expand on it. The same is true of the invisible hand 
theorem, the marginal productivity theory of distribution, the theorem 
of consumer sovereignty, the theory of private property rights, the 
quantity theory of money, and the Austrian trade cycle theory. I am sure 
there are others.

I sometimes wonder whether the relativists among us might use relativism 
as an excuse for avoiding the hard choices about which ideas are 
significant and which are not. In my view, it makes a difference to the 
future of a society whether people do or do not understand

(1) that the division of labor can make labor more productive.
(2) that, under free markets, individuals tend to receive rewards 
commensurate with their contribution to the well being of those in the 
consumer role.
(3) that private property rights mitigate what would otherwise be 
external effects.
(4) that, other things equal, an increase in the money supply causes 
higher prices.
(5) that, other things equal, an unplanned for increase in the money 
supply by means of loan markets cause malinvestment and a trade cycle.

A citizen who fails to learn these lessons is hardly qualified to 
participate in the election of government agents who are expected to 
help set the rules circumscribing human interaction.

These "ideas" or "thoughts" are every bit as important as the ideas and 
thoughts that make up the history of physics and chemistry. Indeed, a 
good argument can be made that if it had not been for advances in the 
enlightened ideas of the predecessors of the modern economists, physics 
and chemistry would not have advanced very far, as everyone knows they 
have. I personally pity those historians of any ilk attempting who 
trivialize these "economic thoughts" and I would challenge anyone to 
defend the proposition that any one of them is not important for the 
citizens of a democracy to know.

Yet Roy seems to think that the history of these ideas or thoughts MUST 
consist of fairy tales. There are certainly misguided and mistaken 
histories of ideas. But Roy's claim is much stronger.


On 12/8/2010 2:45 PM, E. Roy Weintraub wrote:
> The distinction between HE and HET or HOPE is the following: HET 
> creates the impression that thought or ideas live autonomously and 
> exist in a world of disembodied shadows where ideas themselves beget 
> ideas unmediated by human agency or human community. Those of us who 
> are repulsed by this fairly tale, who see ideas as human creations 
> and performances of complex social acts, use HE or the older HOPE. If 
> the sociology, anthropology, and rhetoric of economics is intrinsic to 
> understanding the development of economics, and its continued presence 
> in human discourse, then HET is too weak a term, and implied practice, 
> to engage broadly interesting work.
>
> And yes, history of mathematics is sometimes taught 
> in mathematics departments. If one looks at the institutional 
> affiliations of scholars in the History of Science Society database, 
> linked to the HSS website, and perform a search using USA AND 
> Mathematics, you can see that those with a history of mathematics 
> specialization are distributed across math departments, history 
> departments, science studies programs, history of science programs, etc.
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Womack, John <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>     Can someone much more steeped than I am in the field of "the
>     history of economics" explain the difference, if any, between this
>     field and the history of economic thought?
>     A related point, or opinion: So long as the economists who now
>     dominate the profession in the realms of Judeo-Christian
>     civilization continue to dominate it, they will think they are
>     doing "science," their sense of which makes history irrelevant,
>     simply a fuss over past error, a diversion from the quest for the
>     ultimate function. Does any Physics or Math department offer
>     courses in the history of Physics, or Math?
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> E. Roy Weintraub
> Professor of Economics
> Fellow, Center for the History of Political Economy
> Duke University
> www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html 
> <http://www.econ.duke.edu/%7Eerw/erw.homepage.html>
>
>

-- 
Pat Gunning
Professor of Economics
Melbourne, Florida
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm