This is an interesting, if rather flawed, blog post. From what I can see, he says this (skip bullet points if you have read it): - Mathiness is truthiness, but

This is an interesting, if rather flawed, blog post. From what I can see, he says this (skip bullet points if you have read it): - Mathiness is truthiness, but in the way that putting down any mathematical symbols lends an air of intelligence and truth to an argument, for many people, especially those who don't or can't take the time to understand the argument logic. - Then he explains how economics data are not as easy to construct with universal agreement as with, say, physics (temperature). Agreement on practical action is hard when contrary frames and interpretations appear valid. - He then mentions how this might be a problem for defining capital and other constructs for Piketty, but without any useful argument beyond this assertion. - He then contrasts Feynman's integrity, trying to disprove his own work to make it better, to economist George Stigler's rhetorical style of conviction, ignoring contrary arguments, and playing the polemicist. - He then mentions Isaiah Berlin's distinction between foxes who know little about something , and hedgehogs who know one big thing. All these are interesting frames by which to compare and contrast various things. Yet his analysis, after bringing in all these ideas, is just to say that economics needs both careful analysis and effective rhetoric. Well, duh, but how does this tie into all the great setups he's made so far? And mathy people are good at neither rhetoric nor polemic? But surely, if you're afraid of these people, they would be a mathy person who is using rhetoric to undermine the real philosophy and logic that should - pace Plato - be informing the argument. It's a post full of story and setup, but as yet, signifying nothing.