People are starting to put words into my mouth. I made the following statement regarding the use of mathematics in economics.

Maybe your comment is directed more towards the use of mathematics in economics. I agree that mathematics should be used to facilitate understanding, rather than obstruct it. However, I always thought that anything you could prove mathematically in economics, you could explain in common sense terms. The reverse is not as reliable.

I don't think this is either "pro" or "anti" math. A good paper will prove a result mathematically, then explain the result intuitively.

All of the comments I've read so far are already being looked into in the field of economics--comments on incomplete information or groups of individuals with different information sets and learning or Baynesian updating.

Instead of discussing this in the abstract, it may help for people to present examples of what they're talking about. I gave the example of different birth rates in high and low income countries.

I would like to think that economics looks at the various incentives which lead people to act in certain ways. This is important, for example, in government policy. If the government creates a situation were certain people are better off on welfare than working, then you cannot call those people who choose to remain on welfare as a result lazy. You would call them smart.