================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
Robert Leeson, 
 
Yes, I think that Stigler and Friedman were/are both 
very aware of how to shape their theoretical arguments 
so as to make a maximum of impact. 
 
But my reference is to Stigler's considerable output of essays 
about the history of thought. Among his gems are the argument 
that biography has no value in understanding the work of an 
economist and that the history of economic thought has no value 
to contemporary economists unless it is written so as to 
cast light on some contemporary theoretical dispute. 
 
I learned a few years before his death that he meant what he 
said in these admonitions to do high Whig history. There was 
an article in JPE that absolutely mangled Keynes's and Knight's 
ideas on probability. I wrote a careful response with citations 
to show that this was the case. Stigler wrote back and said, 
"You're right...but I don't care." He was at least polite 
enough to return my submission fee. After all, if he wasn't 
going to consider anything but Whig writing, why should he 
charge people for the privilege to find out? 
 
I agree that Stigler occasionally has a bon mot in one of his essays 
and sometimes a good historical insight. But in general I take his 
imperious attitude history (other than Whig history) to have been 
a bad influence on the field. 
 
Brad Bateman 
Department of Economics 
Grinnell College 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]