==================== HES POSTING ==================== Contrary to Patrick Gunning (and contrary to the dogma of most intellectuals at the turn of the century), I would suggest that our understanding is better grounded and communicated in examples than it is in definitions (see, e.g., the arguments of Thomas Kuhn in his _The Essential Tension_, or contrast the views on language of Wittgenstein and that of Plato, Hobbes, Russell, or most analytic philosophers). However, I would also suggest that the best examples of the history of science in other fields support Gunning's own picture (and examples) of good work in the history of economics -- e.g., the work of Michael Ghiselin and Ernst Mayr in the history of Darwinian Biology. I'm still waiting for an argument explaining why the work of Ghiselin and Mayr isn't a legitimate form of the history of science. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside [log in to unmask] http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]