Not really, but Paul Krugman is laying out some criticism of economics that's in the same spirit of my recent criticisms of networks and computational biology.

"How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?":

As I see it, the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth. Until the Great Depression, most economists clung to a vision of capitalism as a perfect or nearly perfect system. That vision wasn’t sustainable in the face of mass unemployment, but as memories of the Depression faded, economists fell back in love with the old, idealized vision of an economy in which rational individuals interact in perfect markets, this time gussied up with fancy equations. The renewed romance with the idealized market was, to be sure, partly a response to shifting political winds, partly a response to financial incentives. But while sabbaticals at the Hoover Institution and job opportunities on Wall Street are nothing to sneeze at, the central cause of the profession’s failure was the desire for an all-encompassing, intellectually elegant approach that also gave economists a chance to show off their mathematical prowess.

The math Krugman is talking about isn't (for the most part) the same kind of math and computational methodology that I was hammering, but the spirit is the same.
I love math, and science doesn't work without it, but successful science sticks close to its empirical foundation.

Read the feed: