Criticism of Math in Economics I've been reading and speaking to a number of educated economists and economics PhDs who are against the use of intense mathematics and mathematical proof in economic theory. Specifically I've been speaking to those of Marxist and heterodox persuasion and reading their work in an attempt to become more open minded.

They emphasize that the study of work by classical economists (like Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and David Ricardo) is still relevant and that the practice of how mainstream economics uses mathematics is abusive and is an attempt to fool the masses regarding the "science" economists practice.

I have difficulty understanding this argument. What is a reason to be against mathematics in economics?

Note: I'm pretty mainstream and like how economics is taught and structured. I'm not anti math-in-economics, I just want to know why this is an argument.
I find that the essay "The New Astrology" by Alan Jay Levinovitz (an assistant professor of philosophy and religion, not an economist) makes some good points.


  ...the ubiquity of mathematical theory in economics also has serious downsides: it creates a high barrier to entry for those who want to participate in the professional dialogue, and makes checking someone’s work excessively laborious. Worst of all, it imbues economic theory with unearned empirical authority.
  
  ‘I’ve come to the position that there should be a stronger bias
  against the use of math,’ Romer explained to me. ‘If somebody came and
  said: “Look, I have this Earth-changing insight about economics, but
  the only way I can express it is by making use of the quirks of the
  Latin language”, we’d say go to hell, unless they could convince us it
  was really essential. The burden of proof is on them.’


The essay also makes a (more or less adequate&mdash;which, I leave up to you) comparison with astrology in ancient China to show that excellent math can be used to prop up ridiculous science and grant status for its practitioners.