================== HES POSTING ======================== 
 
Well, if Roy Weintraub's response to Robert Leeson is an example of the sort  
of discourse we'll be treated to if his desiderated  application of true  
historiographic standards to the history of economic thought comes to  
be--lord save us!! 
 
I think Leeson's use of the term "formalism" in his post was well within  
the open-textured sense it has in our language. The analogy he made  
between the econometricians' scorn for lowly NBER stat-gatherers and the  
Walrasian scorn for the pitifully partial Marshallian equilibrators was a  
good one, IMHO. This was *not* a case of Humpty Dumpty using a word to  
mean whatever he wants it to mean!  
 
Isn't civility a historiographic standard, for Pete's sake? 
 
Kevin Quinn 
[log in to unmask] 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]