Well, I'm gonna be very Robinson Crusoe here and through a message into the proverbial ocean assuming that someone will be able to respond.
There are so many dimensions to Mirowski's work. So many problems raised and so much light thrown into various dark epistemological corners; I'll raise the three which I consider to be most important.
(1) From a philosophical/epistemological point of view the problems raised in "More Light Than Heat" are extremely interesting. Mirowski's findings cast serious doubt on the work of many prominent figures, the most notable being Foucault. Foucault's "foundational" works ("The Order of Things" and "The Archaeology of Knowledge") attempt to put forward a historicist theory of knowledge. He does this by distilling the "epistemes" which govern knowledge production at various points in time. Yet Mirowski seems to show that the most important element in knowledge formation is not the quasi-grammatical rules which Foucault digs up - but metaphors borrowed from the "hard" sciences (mostly physics, it would seem). In addition to this Foucault's own discourse, channeling Nietzsche, borrows heavily from the physical sciences (notions of "power", but also those of "resistance"). Mirowski's findings seem to raise some pretty serious questions about Foucault's work.
(2) From an economic point of view, Mirowski's work raises the question whether we should take economics seriously at all - at least in its mathematical guises. Its not hard to pick holes in mathematical economic theories, but Mirowski's work doesn't so much pick holes as pull the plug. If Mirowski is correct - and I think he is - all that maths that economists do is so much babble. Their calculations are all showmanship designed to bestow upon them some sort of scientific authority; these calculations have, quite literally no relation to reality. They're sort of free floating sign systems with no real use or point - a bit like the primitive mythological systems dug up by structuralist anthropologists.
(3) From a political point of view Mirowski's work, especially "Cyborg Dreams", calls into question our use of quasi-scientific language in order to organise our systems of production, distribution and consumption. These questions inevitably raise the ghost of the Frankfurt School and their old notion of "instrumental rationality". Is all this "social physics" really that desirable a way of running society? Even Marx engaged in this sort of reasoning. It is a reasoning that seems to project onto society the idea that this society obeys laws similar to those of (19th century) energy physics and, more recently, the internal workings of a computer. If these problems are real then how do we avoid engaging in this kind of reasoning?
Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Insults?