I think there&#x27;s a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is theoretical economists are doing.<p>A medical scientist runs experiments on rats, to gain insight into what the effects of a certain phenomenon might be on humans. Rats aren&#x27;t humans, of course, but we think they share important characteristics with humans. Of course, human trials would be better---butbecause there are ethical and practical difficulties in performing human experiments in controlled environments, we are happy to accept the insights that come from studying rats.<p>Theoretical economics studies the interactions of idealized &#x27;rational&#x27; actors. These aren&#x27;t humans, of course, but like rats, we think they might share important characteristics with humans. Like rational actors, humans have things they want, and do respond to incentives. Economics is largely the study of systems of incentives.<p>You can gain insight into the systems of rational actors---and insofar as you believe the analogy between rational actors and humans, into human economic systems---by writing equations and proving theorems.<p>I&#x27;m sick of this theme that theoretical economists are these dogmatic lunatics who write equations on the board that have nothing to do with reality. They are in the business of crafting powerful arguments about human nature by analogy, which yes, aren&#x27;t always accessible to those of us who haven&#x27;t steeped ourselves in the math, but I think that is no reason to dismiss their insights as nonsense and saying they have a &#x27;math problem&#x27;.