About the character of historical scholarship, I have this curiosity: does the cat kill the curiosity? Is it a sign of historical scholarship that the scholar merely provides a reprint of the original authors in a comparative chronology of how the thoughts changed, without exercising any judgment as to whether errors were made? If the feline were merely to collect dead mice and sort them in order of the date of death, with no curiosity as to the erroneous ways of the mouse, and without an ability to catch them in their stray movements, I think it is too dull for me. I want to be the kind of cat that now and then chases the erroneous mouse. For example, if it is not distasteful to the noble souls here, I wish to put Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Marx, Jevons, Menger, Marshall, Fisher, Keynes, Samuelson, Arrow, Friedman, Solow, Debreu and Lucas on trial on the same charge of unrealism, except that they made the unreality various and virtuous. My vicious target is to cultivate the vice of realism. Now, do I belong here? Is it the community of gatherers who do not hunt? Or am I clicking the wrong mouse? Mohammad Gani