Yes it is, and it is harming the chances of these fields to be scientific. It's sad to say, as I started in general equilibrium theory (as applied to economies with public goods) but now I see how it distorts our intuitions and needs serious work to become somewhat better. I strongly feel game theory, networks, and the serious study of institutions is "where it's at", not forgetting all the ways that at the very foundation of what we do as economic theorists lies expected utility, yet another morass of beauty that leads our intuitions astray from what might be a serious science of economics. Just ask all the people who take experiments seriously. Anyway, time for coffee now before I rant longer. I do have a whole website in preparation with a friend to expound on these matters at what could be called "book length" but it's not ready yet. I will be sure to link it on this site when it has some reasonable amount of content. Then you'll have the chance to visit and read at length what we think (we were both raised on general equilibrium, by the way, but now see it a thing of the past). Oh, and of course, you will have a chance to complain in the comments there, too.

Who are the many who are pointing out errors? What are the errors?

My view of Hayek in a capsule is that he came up with a great observation about localized information but did not develop it into what is now mechanism design theory because of his lack of interest in mathematical tools. Fortunately, many other smart people stepped in and created the theory anyway and are still making advances.

I fear theory unconstrained by empirical testing, any valid sort of empirical testing. I realize that ABM can be seen as such a check, and conceivably (although as you say it is very hard, verging on the impossible) even econometrics, although its track record is not great. Using unfettered theory to "help provide intuition to policymakers about what effects might be important and how important they might be" carries the potential of an ideology, the one behind the logical proofs, hidden in the assumptions of the Foundation, pulling policy strings while potentially leading the policymakers to ruinous directions. No matter how great and transparent the proofs in the theory are, they may still be based on wildly wrong assumptions.

Never mind. The new theme broke the site. Back to the default theme with the Typekit fonts.

Well, "efficient enough" does not literally make sense; an allocation either is Pareto efficient or it is not. Also, no matter how other Romans felt about Nero's playing, stopping him would not be a Pareto improvement as long as it would drop him to a lower indifference curve. Thanks for the link to Lansburg's piece.

Sorry it took so long to approve your comment. I was away for some days and did not have my Intense Debate credentials with me:( I will check out the Montier book. Thanks for the good words and the suggestion about the Kenneth part. I am pretty sure it was not Kenneth Arrow, at least.