That's a very fair critique. I have this discussion often with colleagues. But I can't help but feel like it's cheating a little bit. Because you can call anyt

That's a very fair critique. I have this discussion often with colleagues. But I can't help but feel like it's cheating a little bit. Because you can call anything rational (including irrationality) in hindsight, provided you simply expand what you deem to be rational post-facto. For example, increasing price to increase demand would seem irrational and receive a lot of push back in most companies. If you pull it off and it actually works, people can claim it was rational all along. (This has been my experience with mathematics vs. psychology too. In psychology, people always claim what you say is obvious even though it isn't. Probably because the problems can be stated in plain English. In math, it's the opposite. People find everything incredibly difficult, even though it's super obvious. Probably because mathematical symbols are a little intimidating at first.) But I get your point of view and I agree. Maybe some day we'll have enough data, or the right kind of models such that we can pretty much always know what the right thing to do is with absolute certainty.