"So politicians in the past were more informed because they had an easier time informing themselves."
I didn't mean that they were, quantitively speaking, more informed than they are now. I assumed it to be relative to the general population.
"Those capable of being more well-rounded may have found politics to be a better fit since it was still manageable at that time."
This is simply a related hypothesis to the selection of politicians back then based on the postulate that it was easier to be educated to a useful degree relative to the general population.
You're right, they can't be evaluated to an absolute, or even close certainty, without the necessary facts. But you can still come up with a hypothesis sufficiently close through deduction from facts we can both agree on. I was suggesting the latter for my argument.
Anyways I find this argument quite pointless. If you could do me a favor, let's stop discussing it.
> This is simply a related hypothesis to the selection of politicians back then based on the postulate that it was easier to be educated to a useful degree relative to the general population.
Even if it was (and I see no reason to believe that it was or wasn't), it doesn't necessarily follow that politicians then would have availed themselves of it more than they do now.
> Anyways I find this argument quite pointless.
My apologies. I thought that you made those claims because you found them interesting, which surely includes whether or not they're true.
I didn't mean that they were, quantitively speaking, more informed than they are now. I assumed it to be relative to the general population.
"Those capable of being more well-rounded may have found politics to be a better fit since it was still manageable at that time."
This is simply a related hypothesis to the selection of politicians back then based on the postulate that it was easier to be educated to a useful degree relative to the general population.
You're right, they can't be evaluated to an absolute, or even close certainty, without the necessary facts. But you can still come up with a hypothesis sufficiently close through deduction from facts we can both agree on. I was suggesting the latter for my argument.
Anyways I find this argument quite pointless. If you could do me a favor, let's stop discussing it.