> 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

> 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, that's different, and for that case, my reply was misdirected. A theory in mathematical physics must certainly acquire empirical support, and must remain falsifiable in perpetuity. > 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. I agree completely, and the consequences are sometimes severe, as when quants use questionable economic theories to make phony risk estimates that backfire. > That's the problem, not just the fact that a theory is complex and difficult to understand. Yes, both difficult to understand, and difficult to test in any meaningful sense.