====================== HES POSTING ======================
Robin Foliet Neill wrote:
> With respect to the discussion of Whig interpretations of the
> history of economics: the history of economics is history,
> not economics...
I find the idea that the history of economics is not
economics misleading rhetoric. There are two separate
reasons.
First, how can one do the history of economics without
understanding or defining economics? Surely, one could
not do the history of science without understanding or
defining science.
Second, although history is not economics, even history
cannot be done without THEORY. And economic theory,
properly understood, is a part of the more general theory
that one needs to do history. The clearest statement on
this point is that of Ludwig von Mises in his THEORY AND
HISTORY. In my view this is the first book an aspiring
historian should read.
--
Pat Gunning
http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcomehttp://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome
==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ====================
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]