================ HES POSTING ========================== 
 
E. Roy Weintraub wrote: 
 
>Saying anything 
> one wishes about the history of economics to support a particular view of 
> present-day economics prevents economists and historians from taking 
> seriously the scholarly integrity of the subdiscipline of the history of 
> economics. 
> 
 
I am grateful that Roy Weintraub made this remark. Judging from the HES messages I have  
read, it reflects the typical professional historian of economics' view of his chosen  
field of study. Two points are made in this sentence. (1) If one supports what Roy calls  
"a particular view of present-day economics" (and one must assume past-day economics),  
he must sacrifice scholary integrety. (2) The history of economics, whatever that means,  
is a subdiscipline of some broader history of ideas. I would like to comment on both. 
 
        On (1), the implicit assumption is that there is some general view that we can  
contrast with particular views. What is this general view? Unless Roy tells us the  
general view of present-day economics, this part of the statement lacks meaning. Perhaps  
Roy means to say that the general view encompasses what everyone who has scholarly  
integrety would agree is the general view. One hopes not, for this would be reasoning in  
a circle. Speaking positively instead of negatively, is it not true that there are  
nothing but particular views of economics? If so, scholarly integrety, as Roy views it,  
would seem to be impossible -- unless one can find a way to demonstrate that what  
historians of economics at first regard as a particular view is, in fact, a general  
view. (I believe this to be the case, but I feel confident that most professional  
historians of economics would disagree.) Since Roy seems to think that scholarly  
integrety is possible, he presumably believes that there is some definite general view  
of present-day economics. Further evaluation of Roy's remarks (and if I am right  
further evaluation of the typical viewpoints of modern professional historians of  
economics) must wait until Roy tells us what he means by a general view. 
 
        On (2), the history of economics may indeed be a subdiscipline of some other  
broader discipline. However, Roy does not tell use which disciplilne the history of  
economics is a subdiscipline of. Absent this, we are at a loss to judge whether his  
point is correct or incorrect. Let us suppose that he thinks that the history of  
economics is a subdiscipline of the history of ideas, including ideas about the  
phenomena of natural science. Then, we should have to ask Roy how the history of  
economic "ideas" differs from the history of other ideas, including the history of ideas  
about the phenomena of natural science. Absent this explanation, Roy's statement  
appears to be rhetoric, in the pejorative sense. 
 
        So, Roy, I ask: (1) Please tell what you mean by a general (or non-particular)  
 
view of present-day economics. And (2) please tell what you regard as the other  
histories, of which the history of economics is a subdiscipline. 
 
Pat Gunning 
http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]