Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:23 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------- HES POSTING -----------------
With all due respect, Roy, it seems to me that you are defining whig
history in terms of the intentions of the historian.
More deeply, the question raised by the type of definition you seem to be
making is: why do the history of economics? Is economics merely a form of
art, done for its own sake and successful if has an appeal for whatever
reason, including the emotions of the audience? If so, a history of
economics takes on the same characteristics -- done for its own sake and
successful if it has an appeal. Or is economics a science? If so, one would
expect a history of it to inform us about the development not only of
acceptable ideas but also of ideas that can be demonstrated to be more
correct than those that were rejected.
Is economics an art or a science? If the former, then why do the history of
it? Because its interesting? If the latter, how does an historian of it
avoid being a whig?
But perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Pat Gunning
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|