Of course, I’m not arguing against the use of abstract math. Obviously, math can be very useful in the real world. I’m talking about the misuse of math by scientistic propagandists.
It’s interesting that the cases you cite to support the use of math in economics aren’t so strong, especially the second one about Match Day.
The first one is about the development of discrete choice modelling in San Francisco’s public transportation system. It looks like that model improved the predictions. But is this the norm in economics or an outlier? For instance, how does that anecdote stack up against the catastrophic damage done by bad math in economics?
Take, for instance, climate change (link below). “Even as climate researchers sound the alarm, leading economists have issued their own forecasts that make our situation look far less dire than it is. These economic projections are built on flawed mathematical models and a deeply misleading approach to data analysis, but they have proved devastatingly influential.”
Or take the Bureau of Labour Statistics’ calculation of the consumer price index. As one critic argues (link below), this is a case in which it’s very difficult “to detect the deception that takes place when government agencies report on matters related to the economy. So difficult, in fact, that most economists don’t even understand it, never mind the general public.”
Then, of course, there are the mathematical shenanigans that led to the 2008 Wall Street crash. The article below talks about how at first David X. Li’s model was celebrated and widely adopted. “Then the model fell apart. Cracks started appearing early on, when financial markets began behaving in ways that users of Li's formula hadn't expected. The cracks became full-fledged canyons in 2008—when ruptures in the financial system's foundation swallowed up trillions of dollars and put the survival of the global banking system in serious peril…One result of the collapse has been the end of financial economics as something to be celebrated rather than feared.”
Finally, we can look at Britain’s libertarian catastrophe under Liz Truss, which I recently wrote about. There again, trickle-down economics is widely feared and loathed rather than celebrated.
It’s at least an open question, therefore, whether the formalization of economics is a net benefit or a charade.
As for Match Day, the article below points out how the economists only tested the algorithm that non-economists developed. The hero of the story is a maverick ex-carrier pilot and final-year student at Harvard Medical School. The economists are practically a footnote in that article.
And as for the kidney exchanges, the article below discusses how efficiency is difficult in this case because the problem is bound up with morality:
‘Striving to simply improve the combined years of life gained through kidney transplantation favors the healthy over the sick, the young over the old, as these recipients tend to live longer once they get a new kidney. Other changes to increase efficiency, while productive on their face, may end up discriminating against people by race, say, or blood type.
‘“When you adjust some distributional mechanism, then, generally, one group of people wins and another loses,” Somaini says. “You need to find a way to balance the demands of efficiency against the demands of equity.”’
Indeed, a business professor says, ‘“This issue sits at the intersection of economics and ethics — not an area that economists typically spend their time in and yet here we’re forced to,” he says. “We’re in this world where we have to think about how to solve the problem facing those with kidney failure in a way that feels morally right.”’
Thus, rather than highlighting an unambiguous success in economics, this case points indirectly to the wider problem with the formalization of economics, which is that economic thinking has become alienated from philosophical concerns like morality.
https://www.openmindmag.org/articles/bad-math-is-steering-us-toward-climate-catastrophe
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/toronto-star/20220111/282003265780390
