You're viewing part of a thread.
-
You are conflating a duration of time invested acquiring a particular skill, which is quantitative, and therefore may be ranked, if desired, with a skill itself.
-
What is your thesis?
-
Skills differ qualitatively, but not by expressing any natural ranking as greater or lesser one against another.
-
Well, I do agree that the surgeon isn't necessarily a better person because he has spend more time studying, but the greater time investment in training a surgeon is something that needs to be taken into consideration. How do you think should it be considered?
-
Now you are shifting the goalposts. I am not asserting that no one would take note of how someone may acquire one skill compared to another.
Again, skills are different, not greater or lesser.
-
Again, skills are different, not greater or lesser.
That's what's called an axiom, because it's a statement that can't really be argued. To disprove it, a valuation of skills would need to be imposed, and any valuation could just as easily be rejected, or turn out to be useless. And I do agree with your axiom.
So, my question is, what conclusions do you derive from the axiom?
-
Any valuation that is imposed is simply one imposed, not natural, and neither is any value derived from it essential as an attribute of that which is being appraised.
-
-
-
-
-
-