If it has no equations or numbers it cannot be a science, just economic philosophy.
As an economist, I agree. Economics is far more art than science - well learned and practiced, it gives one the ability to observe and understand how systems work in a dynamic sense. Unfortunately, it is in the self-interest of any academic field to clothe itself in such mystery so that the layman is both baffled and in awe. This serves both to increase the prestige of the field as well as to augment the incomes of those practicing it.
Yes, to get my graduate degrees it was necessary for me to be the master of the mathematics of LaGrange, et al. But, in practice, plain old common sense and a firm hold on the fact that individuals will always act in what they perceive to be their self-interest are of far more value.
As an example, please read the following observations John Maynard Keynes made in his extraordinarily prescient post WWI work "The Economic Consequences of the Peace
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.
By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become 'profiteers,' who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose".
It should therefore not be a surprise that one of Lord Keynes' last pronouncements was: "I am not a 'Keynesian'!