Sorry, when I used "mathematical" in the quoted paragraph I did not mean an actual theorem in mathematics, I meant a scientific theory that involves heavy use o

Sorry, when I used "mathematical" in the quoted paragraph I did not mean an actual theorem in mathematics, I meant a scientific theory that involves heavy use of mathematics to describe some aspect of the world. > Yes, true, but Occam's razor favors simple theories, and there's plenty of empirical support for the idea that a simple explanation is more likely to reflect reality than a complex one. All Occam's razor tells us is that all else being equal, the simple theory is more likely to be correct than the more complex. I was not objecting to this observation, just pointing out that in only applies when all else is equal. There are some cases in which Occam's razor does not help you; when the problem being modeled is complex enough that you really do need a difficult, complicated model to accurately model it. I think the big issue that OP has with economics is that it is neither beautiful, like much of pure mathematics, nor particularly grounded in empirical results, so it essentially winds up being a bunch of complexity for complexity's sake. That's the problem, not just the fact that a theory is complex and difficult to understand.