automatic trading based on Black-Scholes acerbated the crash != the Black Scholes model contributed to the crash
Unrelatedly, is there anything wrong with, say, a mortgage-backed security accurately priced according to a particular model, so long as the limitations of the particular model's assumptions are properly understood? This applies to any model in economics or finance. All are obviously just simplifications of reality.
The technical assumptions of a mathematical model should not be blamed for the actions of ignorant or reckless investors.
You don't get a very big explosion with just a fuse, and no combustible material. Without the combustible material, the fuse just fizzles out, no great harm done.
It's a separate thing to blame a bad idea, versus blaming the people who thought the bad idea was true. Language is ambiguous; trying to weasel one's way out of "this idea is bad" by saying "the people who think this idea, they're bad; it's not the idea itself", is IMO trying to rely on the imprecision of casual language to refute an argument only for a single formulation, but not in spirit. Ideas have no life of their own outside people's heads. The same argument can be applied to say that there is no such thing as a bad idea.
The problem with trying to use Black-Scholes only within its limitations is that it would never, ever get used in any real market. Its fundamental assumptions just don't match the way price movements actually play out.
Unrelatedly, is there anything wrong with, say, a mortgage-backed security accurately priced according to a particular model, so long as the limitations of the particular model's assumptions are properly understood? This applies to any model in economics or finance. All are obviously just simplifications of reality.
The technical assumptions of a mathematical model should not be blamed for the actions of ignorant or reckless investors.