Re: Henin: her all-time rank

On 16 May, 20:32, stephenj <s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
stephenj wrote:
robin wrote:
On 15 May, 13:48, stephenj <s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
hint: that's because you're no smarter than he is and thus very much
underqualified to make an assessment.

I'm sure, in you mind, these childish evasion tactics

lol. you reveal your dumbness by flattering yourself that you have
made arguments worth the trouble of 'evading'.

barrow is clearly more knowledgeable about math and science than
yourself, thus it's no surprise you can't come up with an argument
worth spending more than 5 dismissive seconds on.

sorry about that ...

I am glad that you are not bothering to hide the fact that you have
nothing intelligent or intelligible to say in response.

dude, since 'robin' posted gibberish, how can one respond intelligently?


Sigh. That fact that you seem incapable of understanding my rebuttal
to your position, does not qualify it as 'gibberish'. I'll try to
explain it in simpler terms, that even your limited intellect might
grasp what I am saying.

1) A fundamental part of the scientific method tests models against
observations of the natural world.
2) No amount of maths, no matter how sophisticated, can ever
completely replace this process.
3) Therefore there exists an aspect of science which is more than just
maths.
4) Therefore science cannot be wholely a subset of maths.
5) Therefore it does not follow that the limitations of science are
necessarily contained within the limitations of maths.

Now, if you disagree with that argument, then kindly provide your
counter-argument.


....and for your information, a valid argument does not comprise any of
the following...

1) Claiming person X believes in your position and person X is very
smart, therefore your position must be correct.
2) Claiming the person arguing for the counter position to be stupid,
therefore the counter position must be incorrect.
3) Merely stating that the counter position is wrong or 'gibberish'

.