One of the biggest problems with modern economics is that it began confusing mathematical elegance with scientific truth. To make economic models mathematically tractable, economists have to simplify the real world—often dramatically. That’s not necessarily ideological. It’s what you have to do if you want to solve the equations.... But eventually the math became the master rather than the servant. Assumptions about perfectly rational people, equilibrium, efficient markets, and simplified human behavior persisted partly because adding more of the messy reality of how humans and economies actually work makes the equations much harder to solve. And there was another problem: the mathematics gave economics enormous prestige. It allowed economists to imagine their discipline as something resembling classical physics—a precise science governed by elegant mathematical laws. Admitting that economies are complex, evolving systems populated by social, emotional, cooperative, competitive, power-seeking human beings would mean giving up some of that certainty. Heaven forbid! Read more: David Sloan Wilson David McWilliams Yanis Varoufakis Rory Sutherlandshow more

The other way to describe this is "I know that doesn't add up but I want it to be true, so there!"

Good piece. My mentor Robert Heilbroner called economics' attachment to this "suicidal formalism."

“But eventually the math became the master rather than the servant. Assumptions about perfectly rational people, equilibrium, efficient markets, and simplified human behavior persisted partly because adding more of the messy reality of how humans and economies actually work makes the equations much harder to solve.” (Evonomics) Economics is not yet a science, and 'scientism' is as good a characterization as Feynman's 'cargo cult science', but all this has nothing to do with mathematics. The fact is that economists (i) used the false branch of math, and (ii) they committed tons of formal errors. For proof, see Barzilai and the crumbling of the unsafe citadel Mathiness and the Ur-Blunder Profit (not mathematics) is the key Cross-references: Math/Mathiness The history of economic thought is the history of scientific failure. The major approaches (Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, and their derivatives) are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, and materially/ formally inconsistent. They all got profit wrong. When the subject's foundational concepts are inconsistent, the entire analytical superstructure is scientifically worthless. When the axioms are false, mathematics cannot develop its analytical power. Economists use calculus. This is due to the behavioral axiom of constrained optimization. ‡ But economics is not a behavioral science; it is a genuine systems science. And the appropriate math is the elementary algebra that underlies microeconomic and macroeconomic accounting. For details, see Cross-references: Accounting Specifically Economics between mathiness, dyscalculia, and idiocy Key Issues: Formalization, empty formalism, common sense, nonsense Every science has developed its specific branch of mathematics. The representative economist does not even understand that the proper math of economics is the elementary algebra that underlies accounting. Instead, they maximize utility and equalize marginal utility, which is a NONENTITY. To call this idiocy 'scientism' is a euphemism. As Georgescu-Roegen put it: “In fact, the history of every science, including that of economics, teaches us that the elementary is the hotbed of the errors that count most.” The folks at Evonomics are right with their critique, but too incompetent for the unavoidable Paradigm Shift. They will drown in their own blather. ‡ Marginalism comes from hard-core proposition HC2: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub)

There's no such thing as scientific truth. Only consensus.

If your energy model assumes rational dispatch and perfect storage, Saturn wants its business plan back.