The problem is that at least in my experience, people who are trained in mathematics are generally rather aware of the limitations of models. I find that it's m

The problem is that at least in my experience, people who are trained in mathematics are generally rather aware of the limitations of models. I find that it's mostly practitioners of other disciplines (sociology, economics, sometimes also CS, etc.) who cargo cult mathematics without understanding it deeply enough. That said, I'll agree that it sometimes feels like there's two types of people, the ones that think everything is amenable to rigorous and objective reasoning and the ones that think nothing is. But it's important to realise that both these modes of reasoning are important. For example, a mathematical proof can show that there exists no perfect voting system under some reasonable definition of "fairness"[0], but the theorem itself cannot decide whether that definition of fairness is really the one we care about. But it's one thing to say that "there are more modes of reasoning than ones that lead to objective outcomes" and quite another to say that objective facts play no major role in our society and that getting people to understand that you can't always bend reality to your preconceptions isn't incredibly important. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theo...