================== HES POSTING ======================== Well, if Roy Weintraub's response to Robert Leeson is an example of the sort of discourse we'll be treated to if his desiderated application of true historiographic standards to the history of economic thought comes to be--lord save us!! I think Leeson's use of the term "formalism" in his post was well within the open-textured sense it has in our language. The analogy he made between the econometricians' scorn for lowly NBER stat-gatherers and the Walrasian scorn for the pitifully partial Marshallian equilibrators was a good one, IMHO. This was *not* a case of Humpty Dumpty using a word to mean whatever he wants it to mean! Isn't civility a historiographic standard, for Pete's sake? Kevin Quinn [log in to unmask] ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]