----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- This is a very stimulating discussion. Thanks. Forstater's question seems premised on the assumption that HET is a field, or subclass, within economics, as suggested perhaps by the classification system used by the American Economic Association. Ph. D. Students should be able to major in that subject just as they major in econometrics or monetary theory. Weintraub's reply states clearly that HET at Duke is based on the assumption that HET is not a subclass within economics but a useful part of every economist's knowledge of his particular subject, regardless of field. My own view is based on the assumption that economics is a way of thinking, or a mode of reasoning. Some of the basic principles required to do this thinking, or reasoning, were stated best by the dead economists. It follows that if one wants to learn these principles in the most efficient way, one should study the writings of those masters. (I do not mean by this that modern economics ("mainstream" if you wish) should not be studied also. My judgment is quite the contrary.) This seems to suggest that the Duke policy is too restrictive and also that HET should not be regarded as a field of economics but as an integral part of every other field. The historian(s) of economic thought in a modern economics department should be able to provide guidance to students and other faculty in every major field about where to search for literature on the history of thought in that field. An economics department seems a sensible place to house the training of historians of economic thought. But I am not sure that it is the only sensible place or that it is the best place. Perhaps a history of ideas department (philosophy?) would be a better place. -- Pat Gunning Feng Chia University, Taiwan ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]