I don't think I know Paul Heyne's work well enough to comment on whether
or not he could be classified as a philosopher. A.M.C. Waterman is
certainly much more qualified than I to opine on that. However, Waterman's
recent posting to SHOE on Heyne does in my opinion omit one important
detail. This is that Heyne's 1963 doctoral dissertation at the University
of Chicago was completed in the Divinity School NOT the department of
Economics. The title of Heyne's dissertation is "The Presuppositions of
Economic Thought: A Study in the Philosophical and Theological Sources of
Economic Controversy." In his introduction, Heyne indicates that he views
his thesis as a "study in Economics, Philosophy, and Theology."
David Mitch
> My dear and intimate friend, the late Paul Heyne, was not a philosopher
> and had no pretension whatsoever in that direction. (Indeed one might
> well say, he had no pretensions of any kind.) He was thoroughly trained
> as a Lutheran ordinand at St Louis, took an MA in economics at a local
> university, and proceeded to Chicago for his doctorate. His entire
> professional career was spent in departments of economics. But he had no
> 'research interests in economics' and quite deliberately -- almost
> ostentatiously -- eschewed 'research', which he regarded as a mere
> academic game. He regarded himself, and was regarded, as a teacher. A
> convenient summary of his life and work may be found in the Introduction
> to the volume of his essays edited by Geoffrey Brennan and myself:
> '"Are Economists Basically Immoral?" and Other Essays on Economics,
> Ethics and Religion, edited and with an Introduction by Geoffrey Brennan
> and A. M. C. Waterman'. Indianapolis: LIberty Fund, 2008.
>
> A. M. C. Waterman
>
>
>
> On 27/02/2011 5:19 PM, Samuel Bostaph wrote:
>> Two other philosophers whose research interests are in economics are
>> Jim Otteson at Yeshiva University and Paul Heyne (unfortunately
>> deceased) at the University of Washington.
>>
>> Samuel Bostaph, Ph.D.
>> Champaign, Illinois
>>
>> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
>> themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."--Winston Churchill
>>
>> --- On *Sun, 2/27/11, Eric Schliesser /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Eric Schliesser <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [SHOE] FW: [SHOE] application for an assistant
>> professor position-Milan (Italy)
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 10:12 AM
>>
>> I have advocated in print (one may recall my 2008 JHET article)
>> that history of economics may find a home within philosophy
>> departments (especially because there is a lot of shared history
>> between philosophy and economics).
>> But there is no doubt that there are very few professional
>> philosophers in the English speaking world who also work in
>> history of economics. Here are a few names that spring to mind
>> (with affiliation and major research area):
>> Erik Angner (Alabama) Hayek; Jordi Cat (Indiana) Neurath; Thomas
>> Uebel (Manchester) Neurath; Margaret Schabas (UBC) Hume/Smith;
>> Stephen Turner (USF) Max Weber/Parsons are among the few who keep
>> returning to history of economics. (Of course, there are quite a
>> few Adam Smith & Mill scholars within philosophy, but most of
>> these are really not so interested in economics.)
>> Kevin Hoover can also be included in this list.
>> Brian Weatherson (Rutgers--one of the top ranked department in
>> the world) was briefly interested in Keynes/Ramsey.
>> In Europe David Teirra (Madrid) Chicago; Jack Vromen (Rotterdam)
>> evolutionary economics; Uskali maki (Friedman's methodology essay)
>> can also be included.
>> No doubt we can add a few more. But I agree with Alain that for
>> the time being this is not a very promising survival strategy.
>> Eric
>> BOF Research Professor, Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent
>> University, Blandijnberg 2, Ghent, B-9000, Belgium. Phone:
>> (31)-(0)6-15005958
>> http://www.newappsblog.com/
>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=649484
>> http://philpapers.org/autosense.pl?searchStr=Eric%20Schliesser
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Alain Alcouffe <[log in to unmask]>
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Sent:* Sat, February 26, 2011 5:47:16 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [SHOE] FW: [SHOE] application for an assistant
>> professor position-Milan (Italy)
>>
>> Le 25/02/2011 17:28, Womack, John a écrit :
>>> I think the best revenge may be to join or create a department or
>>> program of the history of sciences, to work alongside historians of
>>> chemistry, biology, physics, etc., who now try to understand
>>> historically why very smart "scientists" in the past so often got
>>> matters in their disciplines so stupidly, disastrously wrong.
>>
>> Revenge ? Really?
>> The same kind of situation exists in France and history of
>> economics is also downgraded and/or excluded from curriculums,
>> hence positions for historian of economics are becoming fewer
>> and fewer. But if we consider the number of positions for
>> historians of sciences (aactualy the category encompasses
>> epistemology, history of sciences and techniques), there are only
>> 76 while positions for economists are around 1900. That's why I am
>> convinced that the future of history of economics depends upon
>> safeguarding positions in economics.
>>
>>
>
>
|
