That isn’t relevant for the immediate issue of intelligence evaluation.
It was a tangent of general interest to the progress of science. It could have been made purely as a relevant-to-intelligence-evaluation point if it were expanded by pointing to the well understood relationship of fluid and crystallized intelligence as they change over time.
It may be relevant to the general point at hand, but it sounds worryingly like a fully general counterargument.
It is merely something that tempers the degree to which the fully general argument “This person is more experienced and has collected more prestige therefore he is right” should be given weight. It would become a ‘fully general counterargument’ when people started using “nah, she’s old” in a general context. When used specifically when evaluating the strength of the evidence indicated by prestige it is simply one of the relevant factors under consideration.
There is a world of difference between a minor point of general relevance to the evaluation of a specific kind of evidence and a “fully general counter-argument”. The abuse of the former would be required for the latter charge to be justified—and that isn’t the case here.
It was a tangent of general interest to the progress of science. It could have been made purely as a relevant-to-intelligence-evaluation point if it were expanded by pointing to the well understood relationship of fluid and crystallized intelligence as they change over time.
It is merely something that tempers the degree to which the fully general argument “This person is more experienced and has collected more prestige therefore he is right” should be given weight. It would become a ‘fully general counterargument’ when people started using “nah, she’s old” in a general context. When used specifically when evaluating the strength of the evidence indicated by prestige it is simply one of the relevant factors under consideration.
There is a world of difference between a minor point of general relevance to the evaluation of a specific kind of evidence and a “fully general counter-argument”. The abuse of the former would be required for the latter charge to be justified—and that isn’t the case here.
Good point.