Bitcoin and the Goldbugs

Austrian economists also argue that mathematical models and statistics are an unreliable means of analyzing and testing economic theory, and advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a method they term 'praxeology'. Additionally, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Mainstream economists are generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economists;[10] in particular, a primary Austrian School method of deriving theories has been criticized by mainstream economists as a priori "non-empirical" analysis[5] and differing from the practices of scientific theorizing, as widely conducted in economics.

I fully understand that economics is not a hard science, but at the same time it has been proven to be possible to derive economic models based on data that give reasonable predictions in most circumstances. Yes, some models break down under "black swan" conditions - and yet Nassim Taleb's whole business was built around the mathematical modeling of those exact conditions.

The Austrian School rejects the whole idea of a mathematical approach to economics, and yet I continually see it defended on HN by the very same people who in the next article are praising Google's ability to predict flu trends based on data, or slamming anti-vaccination campaigners.

I don't get it! Is it just a anti-orthodoxy bent that some people have? Or is it that economics bores people so they just assume that conventional economics must be wrong?