NSmolenskiFan on Nostr: The reason studying the “history of economic thought” matters from a scientific ...
The reason studying the “history of economic thought” matters from a scientific (rather than merely historical) standpoint is to understand how key concepts and theories in the field of economics are justified.
For example, an economist should be able to take to root an account of why profit-and-loss accounting is a key component of a “free” market economy.
This does not mean studying old texts for their own sake. Any science that is truly a science advances, and practitioners should not need to reconstruct the entire history of the field to practice their science. You don’t need to read Leibniz to understand and use calculus, for example.
But economics, like all the social sciences, must have a keen grasp of the objects within its domain. The objects of mathematics are often quite clear; the objects of economics less so. Thus, at this stage in the development of the field, they need to be justified—that is, described in a way that can be objectively verified.
For example, an economist should be able to take to root an account of why profit-and-loss accounting is a key component of a “free” market economy.
This does not mean studying old texts for their own sake. Any science that is truly a science advances, and practitioners should not need to reconstruct the entire history of the field to practice their science. You don’t need to read Leibniz to understand and use calculus, for example.
But economics, like all the social sciences, must have a keen grasp of the objects within its domain. The objects of mathematics are often quite clear; the objects of economics less so. Thus, at this stage in the development of the field, they need to be justified—that is, described in a way that can be objectively verified.