I have somewhat mixed feelings about the splendid conference that Uskali Mäki organized on my ancient methodology article. On the one hand, it is a source of great satisfaction that an article I wrote more than fifty years ago should still be regarded as worth extensive scholarly discussion. On the other hand, that very fact is a severe condemnation of the essay. Surely, if the essay had been really lucid, scholars should not today still be having different opinions about what it says.

I have myself added to the confusion by early on adopting a policy of not replying to critiques of the article. I decided that I had a choice: I could spend my time discussing how economics should be done – a worthy cause; or I could spend my time doing economics – in my opinion, if not a more worthy, a more attractive cause. That act of self–denial has quite unintentionally been a plus for the discussion of methodology. It has left the field open for all comers, and they have all come and produced a broad stream of commentary. The articles at this conference are a good example.

I have read them all and I am impressed with their high quality and intellectual seriousness. I would not have thought that my modest essay would have relevance to so many issues. I feel like a proud father who has a large brood of bright children – all of them right, all of them wrong, and all entitled to his or her own views. Yet I am also impressed that there is a common thread that runs through them.