Myth and metaphor

Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Toynbee has been severely criticized by other historians. In general, the critique has been leveled at his use of myths and metaphors as being of comparable value to factual data ...

In an upcoming post I evaluate some of the criticisms of Toynbee's book A Study of History. I quote that bit from Britannica, and respond, saying I don't see why the use of myths and metaphors as being of comparable value to factual data would be a problem. Economists do it all the time, I say.

Am I defending the use of myth and metaphor? Of course not. I'm criticizing economists. This is the econ crit blog, remember?

Here, Gavin Kennedy dealt with metaphor:

In treating a metaphor as a real entity which they believe actually operates in society you end up with fantasies. When these fantasies are believed by economists, including Nobel Prize Winners, you leave reality and belittle claims to economics being a science.

See also Dijkstra on unwarranted analogies.

Okay, that's metaphor. What about myth?. Do economists use myth on an equal footing with factual data?

Yeah, but they don't call it myth. They call it "models".