idea for social experiment

most people have herd the saying “we fear the unknown”. this is generally true given the instinct of fear, but i believe there is something more to be said. A particular argument i was involved in has produced interesting results. what interests me now is not the matter of the topic but the fact i have rarley recieved a counter argument that was not driven by hatred derived from the extremeness of the conflicting ideas presented.

what happened was this.

i presented an argument for the sake of protecting religious children from being placed in environments that would be detrimental to their freedom of belief regarding public schools. (what’s bolded is for a reason you wil see soon)

completley unrelated to my argument, they only replied with regard to why religion was wrong, why evolution was right, why things have been wrong in the past, why science should be taught in science class, and the complete opinionated denial of the few solid facts presented, none of which involved any target of counter argument. even arguments for my cause (the few that there were) were of the same biased hatred, but still not one thing about how the childrens rights were affected. i have presented this topic on a number of websites and have been met with the same results. This is what i have concluded.

given the deeply personal and radical nature of the 2 ideas of the topic (evolution vs creation), people instantly invoke some sort of “unknown” caution in their mind and are subsequently subjected to many emotions which can cloud rational and logical thinking (fear, anger, hatred)

what i propose to do is create 2 or 3 fake websites on believable domain names.

the first we will publish will present a completly contrived and omni-contradictorial point of view on a hot(meaning something of a sensitive nature so to speak) topic by means of website. we will present this view and contradict everyone right off the bat then we will open a public baord for readers to present their thoughts. what will we see? logical and rational responses? or will we see responses where logic is faulted by hatred or some other emoton? will they even acknowlege our right to believe in what we want?

and secondly we will present another contrived omni-contradictorial idea but the topic will be of great indifference, great indifference meaning people could care less what the answer is, yet it is still a debated topic with a radical nature. what kind of responses would we get here? logical and rational? or arguments which just laugh and ostercize?

the purpose of this is to answer this question:

what levels of logic can falter when trying to justify a personal belief to youself and others

thoughts anyone?

You should get some interesting comments out of all of it.

I agree that all children should have thier freedom of belief protected from those that would harm them mentally. Bullies do come in all sorts of belief factions and they do need to be educated in acceptance.

Do you suggest that taxpayers foot the bill to make a school system seperate from the ones existing? I can’t condone that if such is the case. I can condone revamping the systems. They do not educate anymore at any rate, they just turn out good little future robots.

Forced segregation is a very bad idea though. It does promote intolerance and hatred. Forced desegregation does the same. Anytime a human is forced we tend to strike out in one way or another. I for one would enjoy seeing the curriculums having classes on acceptance and tolerance. Since they have health classes this would fall very nicely into this category.

It is the adults that teach hatred and intolerance. Look at political leaders, the mudslinging is at an all time high. These are role models? Puleeeasee. Competitive games do this also and they are considered role models. Corporation commercials, News media, Educators, my goodness hate for differeing opinions and thoughts permeate a childs’ life. From cradle to grave. Competition is fine but, name calling and derogatory actions and remarks do little to give kids an idea that acceptance is good.

I would think if you wish to seperate and allow freedom of belief you would have to do quite alot of seperating. Cut the kids off from most or all contact with the outer world. There are just too many bully influences. Then what? What happens after you protected the kids for so long? Turn them loose? That would be leading lambs to slaughter.

Can’t feasably seperate and protect. In doing that you would leave them more vunerable in so many ways. I would have to argue against it. Allow the parents their rights to be parents, to define the child’s life. The Gov’t interferes with parenting so much now kids are becoming worse not better humans, they are weakening to a lethargic state of mind. that is worse than mental bullies, that is creating generations of pets for Gov’t leaders. Please think about segregation, it is never the answer.

lol that has been one of the most rational responses to my post, and you didnt even read it :smiley: .

your thoughts are very interesting. i agree segregation is never the answer. but somehow i think we should strive for freedom from the mental slavery of our existence and thereby the bullies aswell, as you put them.

quite a rational response indeed. perhaps since i described what the common problem you were inclined to avoid the pitfalls? inconclusive yet interesting. cheers :sunglasses:

I read it I just got a different take on it. Your prime concern seemed to me that folks build walls and throw things at others in defense and attack out of fear of the unknown. It is seen here at ILP and other forums all of the time. My way is better than your way go away type of attitude. If we start with kids we can build a better social structure. Your websites will get interesting hits. Avoiding pitfalls means caring for another’s opinion wether you agree or not. Respect is in short supply, I like to hoard it and try to use it when ever possible :smiley:

You can only protect kids from bullies by teaching them how to act. You can only stop making bullies by proper upbringing. Parents really need to be licensed to have kids. They really should have to pass a series of tests.

perhaps your right, my go away bully attitude is kind of moronic. what kind of bully would just go away right? :laughing: . i am in absolute concordance with you, it is the children that must be built with respect (the point of my argument which most of them missed).

but the funny replies still come pouring in. i am forced to make laughing reply after laughing reply to a few relentless “haters”. they are very very slowly reducing the level of hatred in their arguments as i point it out to them, but the level of its strength is awsome.

thats what philosophy is all about and thats the reason i came to this website :slight_smile:

I alway thought that putting fake, but incredible, news stories on TV in the big brother house would be cool. Imagine they’re reaction when they see that the Queen has become a devout muslim on the telly!

I’m not sure I agree with that statement that children should have their freedom of belief protected.

Supposing a child doesn’t believe in gravity. Suppose some one tells that child to then walk out the window of the fifth floor flat. Because it does not belief in gravity, the child does as it is told. It’s freedom of belief has not been tampered with. But it’s likely to be dead at this point.

Time and again I see children who ‘believe’ that they can behave badly without consequence - because adults let them. That behaviour may include, in cases of children with learning difficulties that I have seen, touching female pupils or teachers ‘inappropriately’ i.e. touching their boobs. Now in a school situation everyone is very ‘understanding’ - and wrongly so in my opinion. Because when that child becomes a young adult and is let loose on the world, then they will likely find that they are in prison for child abuse because no one has ever bothered to challenge their belief that they can touch whom so ever they like where ever they like.

I believe that freedom of expression and freedom of belief are necessary. But that doesn’t mean to say that beliefs shouldn’t be challenged. There is such a thing as truth. And if a child’s belief runs counter to truth then it is going to cause that child either mental or physical harm. So protecting the child’s freedom of beleif may actually cause it harm rather than the reverse.

Beliefs should be challenged but, who’s right is it to challenge it? The parent’s, society? If society, which part of society should be allowed to challenge the belief? All or certain parts? With children you run a slippry slope of rights, social protocol, ethics and morals. Who has the right to direct children? If the Government does, then what need do we have of parents? Do they just become breeders? Beliefs are traditionally part of the parental right. Should we , in order to create a uniform society remove that right? Do we want a uniform society? I see a real slippery slope.

In my job, I see an awful lot of children damaged mentally because we (adults) pussy foot around them and never tell those children what’s what. We then raise a bunch of adults who can’t raise their own children because they have never been taught to, say, make their own decisions. That’s a good example, in fact. We adults are so busy thinking about children’s ‘rights’ that we allow them to make far too many decisions at far too early an age. Before children can make decisions for themselves, they (1)have to be taught how to by experienced adults and (2) have to gain some life experience themselves in order to have something to base their decisions on. But time and again I see in education that we don’t do that and by abrogating our own responsibilites as adults we create a generation of children whose minds are disabled. The people who have the right to direct children are experienced adults, I suggest. That is, after all, how children learn - by copying adult behaviour. So that is why adult behaviour must be sound and for that we need to value experience (as opposed to expertise, as we currently do).

As to creating a uniform society - I entirely agree with you that we don’t want a uniform society. That’s happening already as western commercialism takes over the world. Cultures are becoming homogenised and losing their distinctiveness, which impoverishes the world rather than enriches it. We need diversity to progress and evolve - diversity is essential, in fact. But we do need uniformity in so far as we need to understand ‘truth’ rather than falsehood. In the example I used, I suggest it is sensible that we all need to uniformly believe in the ‘truth’ of gravity, otherwise the consequences are profound. That we understand those certain ‘truths that lie too deep for taint’ (Wilfred Owen) is essential, but that does not imply uniformity. It does the opposite and will result in diversity. It will allow diversity because knowing what is true and what is false gives us a grounding from which healthy growth ensues. Apart from gravity, another example of the truth might be the nature of existence. There is a truth there that lies too deep for taint and which it is essential we grasp.

I almost cringe for this is a tricky question that could start a landslide of arguing, but, I must ask. What do you mean by ,only Experienced adults teaching the children?

By that I mean that I differentiate between experience and expertise. Experience is the only teacher therefore it must be experienced adults teaching children and then, eventually, those children grow up, gain independence, and learn to use their own personal experience as their teacher.

To explain what I mean about personal experience v. expertise…

Expertise gives us knowledge, personal experience gives us understanding. Understanding is profoundly more important than knowledge.

Experts have degrees from university and so on and get their knowledge, by and large, from textbooks. In the majority of cases, that means they understand very little because their expertise is based on knowledge rather than understanding through personal experience. What’s more they rely on textbooks and, assuming them to always contain the truth, ignore instances where personal experience contradicts the textbook.

Then there is experience. There’s a well known saying - ‘experience teacheth fools’. By my way of thinking, experience is the ONLY teacher. However, modern society does not value experience. Modern society is full of ‘experts’ telling the rest of us what is or is not good for us. We are no longer allowed think for ourselves, but instead must rely on the pronouncements of experts. That is true in education just like everywhere else. So when a teacher, say, of 30 years teaching experience as well as having years of experience in mental health actually knows more than the so-called expert and disagrees with the expert opinion regarding a pupil’s mental health, because that teacher doesn’t have a degree in educational psychology, then their wisdom and experience is totally ignored in favour of the expert. This has consequences, for the mental health of pupils suffer because experience is ignored in favour of book-learned experts. I’ve seen this happen again and again, and it’s the pupils who suffer.

My experience is that experience is the ONLY teacher, so it doesn’t matter whether someone has a degree, what does matter is their breadth of experience. For it is through breadth of experience that we can assess the wisdom of expert advice for ourselves and then choose to adopt it or ignore it. In fact, we wouldn’t need experts if we understood the value and necessity of personal experience as our teacher. But I won’t at this point go into the methods experts use to stop the rest of use from using our personal experience instead of relying on them!

Ok, I will agree with your thoughts but, lets clarify it up a bit. How are you planning to get only experienced adults to be the ones raising children? Are you willing to remove children from the care of their inexperienced parents? Or require licensing to be a parent. or both? Or what? Just how far do you wish to take it?

None of that. I wouldn’t want that sort of power! I believe in the ‘power’ of personal experience, however, and coming round to the truth through being allowed to gain and use personal experience. Currently personal experience is severely discouraged and not valued in the least. Education does not teach people to think for themselves, either. So I’m more interested in challenging belief through freedom of expression and getting people thinking again instead of being in thrall to experts. We need to get priorities sorted out and that is done through education in an either formal or informal way. So no, not by coercion, but by education.

OK, Pheeeww, that is cool. I have heard too many people wish to remove parental rights even more than what is happening now. Education is the best answer for humans but, not for those that wish to control, the ones that promote the experts.

Social Priorities unfortunately are in the hands of those that lead. We sort of are in a catch22 or maybe historical bad loop. Unless we set priorities we can’t get people to wake up ,but to set priorities we have to get people to wake up…and around and around all the while fighting our delightful pain in the rear leaders that love confusion in their people. ](*,)

That’s interesting. I’m glad we agree!

I would go further about our pain-in-the-rear leaders, hwoever. I think that currently we are in the mess we are in because those at the top are power mongers. Power corrupts, as they say. So in many ways fighting those at the top is unproductive because all they are interested in is maintaining power and they won’t loosen their grip. The effect of power is like a drug and trying to reason with those at the top is as successful as trying to reason with drug addicts. So no, I think that change at the grass roots level is where it’s at, so to speak, and that is done through education and reminding people that they do have freedom if only they would use it. If they don’t use that freedom they will lose it, as indeed is happening as I type!