Aureliano, maybe I should be more precise. The ill-defined “rigour of mind” is something all mathematicians must have but not all people who have it must be mathematicians. A rather extreme example would be Ed Witten, one of the preeminent if not THE preeminent mathematical physicist of the last ten years. He never did any of the studies you did – he was a history major… so if the number of classes or formal qualifications was the measure then you and I would be more of a mathematician than a Fields Medalist!! Another example would be Bill Gates. Please also note “rigour of mind” is not the same as “intelligence”(whatever that means).
To go back to the original comment, Deuce strikes me like most philosophers I have met; he has thinks he/she(I am henceforth going to assume he is a he to save typing) has a deep understanding of what are rather deep concepts when in fact he has a very shallow one. He clearly has no real understanding of logic, the difference between mathematical theorems and their application, between the meaning of “true” in the strict mathematical case and “true” in the scientific sense. He is confused between the real world meaning and the extremely precise meaning it has in logic or maths.
Finally, why would a mathematician know more about Iraq than someone else? Say an Iraqi? Or someone who did arabic? Also Maths is a separate enterprise from Physics. The standards are completely different. Physics is solely about what matches the real world, Maths is about proofs. They tend to be different types of people. If you look at why Superstring theory has lasted as long as it has with “no predictions” – it makes some but none that are unique to it and not another theory – then a large reason is because the current theories of General Relativity and the Standard Model are so highly accurate that there is no guide as to where to go. Again to respond to Deuce, we KNOW at least one is false because they contradict each other. Given how logically obvious he find falseness implies what is true, I think there is an “easy” Nobel in the bag for him by simply stating which is “true”….
