[BlueDragon]

Were not talking about math and Mozart.

And then you say;

"No, we are not. And this is the limit of what you have said which can be considered accurate."

You were the one who brought the comparison!

So now you agree that the comparison is not necessarily all that helpful?

[cothrige]

You were the one who brought the comparison!

Yes, the comparison, or more accurately, the analogy.

So now you agree that the comparison is not necessarily all that helpful?

No, it is extremely helpful and quite accurate, if one is able to understand things analogically. However, to use an analogy is still to speak only of that of which it is held to be an analogue. We were not speaking of Mozart and math, but rather of your failure to understand that relation and "overlap" does not equate to being able to take anything one says about one idea and then argue it as a support or proof of the related or overlapping concept. This is what you have done regarding infallibility.

A pope speaks of the authority of the papacy, and you stretch that into some idea of a much broadened dogma of infallibility with the recourse that authority and infallibility must "overlap" in some conceptual way. Nope. Wrong. Popes are always authoritative, but are rarely infallible. Conceptual overlap means nothing in regards to applying this specific speaker's words, just as it would mean nothing if one used the same position to try to apply the words of Mozart on, say, symphonies to an argument of algebra. Conceptual overlap does not change the purpose and meaning of an author's intent when they write something about a topic. And therein lies the accuracy and usefulness of the analogy.

And, by the way, I am still not talking about Mozart and math, just in case you are confused again.