It is those of the rationalist tradition who would tend to believe that complex financial systems can be modelled by complex mathematics. However, modern mathematics can be antiquated economics and modern economists have come to a greater realisation of the limitations of mathematics and statistics in modelling economic systems. One only has to read more recent work on the weaknesses of econometrics to appreciate this. Also, financial economics often concentrates on equilibrium phenomena. Again, much could be learnt from modern economics, in which it is appreciated that the most interesting things happen when markets are not in equilibrium.
Markets constantly chase continually moving equilibrium positions.
To focus more on disequilibrium and less on equilibrium conditions is surely something which is at least as important in investment markets as in other markets. I do not want to leave myself open to the criticism that I do not appreciate that the usefulness of models does not depend on the validity of the assumptions etc. I am fully aware of that. Steven Haberman came to that conclusion from his experience of using the models, not from his reading of political philosophy. There is a danger in financial economics that those modelling can miss the point.