History of economic science is an exercise in the development and application of principles of economic science. Mr. David Brett, who sounds like a historicist, might do himself good if he cares to learn about the intellectual battle between scientists and historicists, in which historicists lost, more than a century ago. He ought to know who Carl Menger was and why he fought off the historicists. The idea of putting the historical study of the development of scientific principles of a discipline in a category of history, archaeology, and religion seems to be highly laughable. I have no doubt that such a proposal comes from one who has no idea what the history of thought contains. Let me emphasize that HES constitutes a validation procedure for current research on the principles of economic science. [Should I write an article on this?] I would encourage Mr. Brett to consider the idea of an inherited house, built by ancestors, but still being inhabited by their successors, who keep making changes, and look back in the old treasure chests whenever they wish to solve some problem. This is because principles of science are timeless, despite the evolution of ideas. To suppose that the study of history of scientific ideas is just some kind of old curiosity shop of useless relics similar to archeological antiques is a monumental blunder. Mr. Brett might also enlighten him if he would care to study Thomas Kuhns idea of the Structure of Scientific Revolution and how others have looked at the same issues. He would then be able to understand that science is not the result of a lone wunderkind who delivers new bits of knowledge from out of the complete void of ignorance, but through a very organized process of ceaseless work of great many scientists all of whom are trying to solve problems, all the time sharing ideas on how to solve problems. The fist use of the history of economic science is to learn about ways of solving problems that our predecessors tried with varying degrees of success, including lasting achievements. It is usual among the uninitiated to suppose that the present generation possesses the refined knowledge and the earlier generations only had junk. I suggest that Mr. Brett should enroll in a course on the history of economic science. I feel sad that Israel Kirzner has retired; otherwise I would suggest him to go to NYU and study under Kirzner. I may still offer him the idea that he can take a few courses from Peter Boettke. He would then realize that the history is pretty alive, that it is a conversation with our seniors who are still exercising their minds. We need to see that we are continuing a process of learning that was begun long ago but that has not been finished. I hope one understands why a son takes guidance from his father. Mohammad Gani