>>213996973
I would feel hungry, why?
I clearly demonstrated that my problem is not with the hypothetical, but with the baseless assumption that Dutch IQ would be lower in 1800. He did not say
>imagine that Dutch IQ was lower in 1800, then...
He said:
>Imagine we did an IQ test back in 1800. Dutch IQ would be lower (for no stated reason), so..
This is very clearly a different argumentation structure. If relevant, I could entertain the hypothetical situation where IQ were lower (but fail to see the point: any conclusions drawn there would only be sound with respect to that hypothetical realm in which the assumption were true). I am just asking that brown animal to defend his claim that if you were to go back in time 200 years ago IQs would be lower, because I'm concerned with drawing conclusions about the real world.