Sure. If some parts of the message contain novel correct insight but the rest is incomprehensible, the simple hypothesis that the whole message is correct gets likelihood-privileged over other similarly simple hypotheses.
But I don’t think you’re talking about the stuff Shalmanese wants to talk about. :-) “Wisdom” isn’t knowledge of facts; wisdom is possession of good heuristics. A good heuristic may be easy to apply, but disproportionately hard to prove/justify to someone who hasn’t amassed enough experience—which includes younger versions of ourselves. I’ve certainly adopted a number of behavioral heuristics that younger versions of me would’ve labeled as obviously wrong. For some of them I can’t offer any justification even now, beyond “this works”.
Sure. If some parts of the message contain novel correct insight but the rest is incomprehensible, the simple hypothesis that the whole message is correct gets likelihood-privileged over other similarly simple hypotheses.
But I don’t think you’re talking about the stuff Shalmanese wants to talk about. :-) “Wisdom” isn’t knowledge of facts; wisdom is possession of good heuristics. A good heuristic may be easy to apply, but disproportionately hard to prove/justify to someone who hasn’t amassed enough experience—which includes younger versions of ourselves. I’ve certainly adopted a number of behavioral heuristics that younger versions of me would’ve labeled as obviously wrong. For some of them I can’t offer any justification even now, beyond “this works”.