Delaclava wrote:Liventia wrote:Whatever the merits of your explanation, "you can only argue with me in terms of a mathematical theory you may not know about" is a disingenuous way of shutting down debate.
Which is why Farf went ahead with this clear, well-written post in an attempt to explain said theory. This actually opens up constructive discussion, rather than suppressing it. It's not unreasonable to ask that people are at least somewhat thoughtful in their engagement.
It's one thing to ask that people take the mathematics into account. It's quite another to say that anyone responding must "make sure (their responses) are grounded in mathematics". That's where the debate is being stifled. People are allowed to have and debate the rights and wrongs of this without needing to explain their position based on an inaccessible (to most people) mathematical theorem.