My article? But leaving that aside, I simply don't understand your points at all. In what way is a mathematical proof "a pile of evidence"? Consider, as a si

My article? But leaving that aside, I simply don't understand your points at all. In what way is a mathematical proof "a pile of evidence"? Consider, as a simple, single example the Banach-Tarski theorem. To help me understand you, perhaps you could explain how the proof of that is "a pile of evidence." As I said elsewhere, I'm baffled by the responses here, so I'm not going to reply any more until, and if, I understand the points of view being expressed. EDIT: speeling cerrocted