In response to Mason Gaffney I agree that there is a good portion of econometric work which is very non-significant (as I am sure Deirdre can elaborate on), but I think it is unfair to lay the blame with someone else -- in this case 'quants'. 'Redefining Progress' which Mason refers to is not shy of flexing theireconometric muscle. For example a recent publication on the Climate Stewardship Act offers a very neat numerical result for how employment will change in every US state for every five years until 2025... This may be another case of 'GIGO' (Garbage in-Garbage Out), but it's a game played by all economists. Empirics comes in two forms - raw micro-data and indicators. All the data Mason mentions are indicators, and the tragedy of the matter is not the carelessness of 'quants' but the apathy of the economics discipline as a whole to what these things actually mean. Every indicator has a very specific definition, in fact it is so precise that no-one should, upon reading the statistical practices and manuals, agree that GDP per capita is income per head as we think of it... As the definition stands, and the data collection works, it is not the income of anyone being measured. Surprised? (I was, and I am working on that topic at the moment) Raw micro data, empirics and extra care when dealing with indicators are all signs of good numerical historical work, just like a strong understanding of sociology, history (of thought and reality) and economic writings makes for good literary historical work. Both necessary for HET and policy, as well as good economic analysis. I stand by my point, that to do good pluralist science we must be willing to listen to each other, and in this case that includes asking the 'quants' for their definitions (of the indicators! not alpha's and beta's), and seeing where good empirical work can take us. There is much to be had in empirical work, but Mason is right, you cannot just grab and run with indicators, until you know what they mean at least. -Benjamin Mitra-Kahn