================= HES POSTING ================= Robert Leeson, Yes, I think that Stigler and Friedman were/are both very aware of how to shape their theoretical arguments so as to make a maximum of impact. But my reference is to Stigler's considerable output of essays about the history of thought. Among his gems are the argument that biography has no value in understanding the work of an economist and that the history of economic thought has no value to contemporary economists unless it is written so as to cast light on some contemporary theoretical dispute. I learned a few years before his death that he meant what he said in these admonitions to do high Whig history. There was an article in JPE that absolutely mangled Keynes's and Knight's ideas on probability. I wrote a careful response with citations to show that this was the case. Stigler wrote back and said, "You're right...but I don't care." He was at least polite enough to return my submission fee. After all, if he wasn't going to consider anything but Whig writing, why should he charge people for the privilege to find out? I agree that Stigler occasionally has a bon mot in one of his essays and sometimes a good historical insight. But in general I take his imperious attitude history (other than Whig history) to have been a bad influence on the field. Brad Bateman Department of Economics Grinnell College ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]