[all2]

> Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers.

One of the biggest problems facing someone trying to assemble a numerical model of some thing or process is whether or not their model is adequate to describe the phenomena they are observing.

This is why psychology remains a statistically modeled science, largely relegated to anecdotal research.

(Note that my intent is not to speak ill of psychology and its cohort, only illustrate that just because you can slap numbers on a thing doesn't mean you've described it well.

Look at the transition of understanding from Newtonian mechanics to relativity and quantum mechanics. Newtonian mechanics was enough until someone saw Mercury was doing weird things it shouldn't.

And before Newtonian mechanics we had a broken description of the solar system with more exceptions than rules. We were throwing numbers at a system and failing, in some part, to describe it with consistency.)

[throwawaymath]

Well said. Having to add increasingly many edge cases to your model is a sign your model is insufficient.