Math can explain everything if you've restricted the scope of everything to the kinds of things that math is good at explaining. This philosophical conundrum magnifies when we consider governance at scales beyond those at which homo sapiens evolved to grasp intuitively. What should we count to wisely operate a nation state? podcast 
It's really easy to measure student graduation rate, satisfaction scores and employment salaries after college. It's really hard to measure whether students became more wise, whether they became more curious, whether they are more reflective.
Similarly the medical world for example, targets things that are easily measurable like lifespan and saving lives and doesn't target things that are harder to measure like various forms of rich and complicated quality of life.
Imagine you have a population of scientists and they all are identically rational in the same way they believe whatever theory has the most evidence behind it, this seems good, right? That's actually terrible.
You want a diverse environment in which people have different sensibilities. Maybe some people do the most with the evidence and maybe some people just fall in love with weird theories and once in a while those pay off.
It is really good and healthy for human beings to live in an ambiguous environment with a pluralistic set of goals.
That is an essential tension with the methods of large scale collective organization. If it's true that for an organization to cohere it needs to have clear policies so it can act coherently, then we should not expect that kind of ambiguity to survive at scale.