On 01-14-2013 you stated this:
"If Sampras does not make accurate predictions about future tennis events, then there is no reason to believe what he says is correct here."
Clearly, you were referring to my claim that I believe Sampras. In my previous post I explained what I meant when I said that I believe Sampras.
You didn't explain that at all. You said you have more reason to believe Sampras than to believe Roy Emerson. My point is that that in itself does not constitute a belief that what Sampras says is correct, nor does it justify
such a conclusion.
Say I make a prediction that the world will end in 50 years. "That's a crazy prediction", you say. So I point to someone in a lunatic asylum who says that the world will not end in 50 years, and I respond "Don't you have more reason to believe me than him?" The truth is that you have reason to believe neither
of us, because neither of us have presented any credible evidence.
The same goes for Sampras. You should believe in his prediction that Djokovic will reach a double digit slam count, if you also believe in his credentials as a predictor. Adding Roy Emerson into the mix changes nothing.
A belief that Sampras is a better predictor than Roy Emersen is not a belief that what Sampras says is correct.
The two things are separate. If your argument is just the former claim, then it is essentially meaningless, because nothing follows from it. It is like saying that you have more reason to believe my prediction than the guy in the lunatic asylum's.