> specialization (as opposed to division of labor) > is the antithesis of the scholarly ideal > of the Renaissance man. In some cases, it is warranted to give > authoritative weight to the opinions of amateurs precisely when they > lean to the latter category and embody the classical definition of > "amateur". > Gil Guillory, P.E.
There is no necessary inconsistency between specialization and the Renaissance man. Time constraints require specialization, but one is a better economist if one knows some law, history, geography, literature, political science, and philosophy. And besides his specialty, a good economist should know some history of thought, economic history, and something about the various schools of thought besides his own. So far as giving weight to amateurs, indeed, the scholarly approach is to be open to propositions from any person who appears to be reasonable. However, in my experience and reading, the probability of an amateur having any significant new insight or theory in economics is close to zero. There is especially something about the topic of money that brings out the cranks. Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED]
