Yes. It's ALL been politics, with age 65 the closest to legit since it simply corrected the blatant political maneuver which resulted in age 60 in the first place. If you REALLY want to do science on this you have to overhaul the entire system system from top to bottom with a clean slate.

Determine what number is acceptable for pilot incap and performance failures (such as wrong taxi turn because eyesight is bad). Keeping in mind that zero or extremely close to it is practically and economically unattainable.

Then you have to analyze stats and determine what the root causes of medical-related failures have been. Then you have to set standards and screen/test for those failure points. That can vary by age, and as you get older age itself is a major factor.

That might be a big can of worms, and the danger is starting with a goal and then only later learning where the chips fall... you might need higher standards, and more stringent screening even for younger pilots. Case in point, the FAA a few years tried to set medical standards related to BMI which would have basically branded 30-50% of the pilot population with a presumptive sleep apnea diagnosis, with all of the attendant evaluations and treatment. Lobbyists intervened on that, and maybe some congress folks? Don't recall exactly who.

So they kind of prefer to muddle along with the current system, which at least they have 10 years of empirical data for both age 65 and the ATP rule. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Adding two years might be considered a minor tweak, and they can observe and see what happens.