I think your main point is probably right but was not well argued here.
Fair, I though that an example would make this sufficiently obvious that it wasn’t worth arguing for at length but I should have spelled it out a bit more.
I think it’s also worth saying a thing very directly: just because non-behavioral evidence isn’t likely to be widely legible and convincing does not mean it is not useful evidence for those trying to have correct beliefs.
FWIW, I do say this under “These techniques could be quite useful via two mechanisms:”.
Fair, I though that an example would make this sufficiently obvious that it wasn’t worth arguing for at length but I should have spelled it out a bit more.
FWIW, I do say this under “These techniques could be quite useful via two mechanisms:”.