----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- Yuval Yonay has moved this discussion into productive areas for historians of economics. We need to think back on Lakatos's argument that any philosophy of science instantiates its preferred history of science, and alternative historiographical positions will construct histories with conflicting valorizations. Winners and losers will depend on who is doing the writing, and to what purpose of course. What can we reconstruct of the position, and implicit historiography, or those who seek to rank "Great Economists"? To me it seems consistent with OTSOG-ery, the on-the-shoulders-of-giants stuff much beloved of Nobel Committees. Alternatively a Popperian would ask about the great falsificationist moves (but Blaug says there are none in economics), a Kuhnian would ask ""Was there a revolution, and who did it?" (but Kuhn thought there were none in economics), a strong program STS historian would ask ... E. Roy Weintraub Duke University ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]