The meaning is that the results you get by using a formula don't correspond well to actual data. Usually it means that you chose the wrong formula or the formula has some limitations. What is oxymoronic in that?
In short, stop trolling...
In Maths the above statement = fail
In Chem the above statement = fail
In Physics the above statement = fail
In Computer Science the above statement = fail
Even in sociology the above statement = fail
Economics is littered with examples of "formulas that don't correspond well to actual data". Then economists run a massive economic experiment called Quantitative Easing with these formulas...
I can't really believe anyone can be so stupid. Yellen was afterall cum laude of her year. I really think these people get pressured/corrupted by the system the higher they are promoted. Would you believe Greenspan's Phd thesis in 1977 forecasted the collapse of the housing bubble?
http://www.webcitation.org/6DKm7EZfnWrites Greenspan: "There is no perpetual motion machine which generates an ever-rising path for the prices of homes."
This implies he
knowingly inflated the housing bubble and then goes on to deny that asset bubbles can be identified when they occur. Greenspan says: bubbles can only be identified after they have burst. How convenient!
This is precisely why I'm one hundred percent behind an incorruptible mathematical algorithm to replace human central banks. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
This is also what gives Bitcoin value over the other 194 currencies.