|
|
|
|
|
|
by MoreSEMI
744 days ago
|
|
|
Just because they fully developed doesn’t mean the argument they are presenting isn’t logical. It might not be, and that might be because they aren’t fully developed, but you would never know. You must treat every argument you hear as if were generated in good faith. Saying that you can’t rely on them to understand their own shortcomings in their own logic is inconsistent with the idea of logical debate in the first place. How would one ever know the difference between someone who is not convincible vs a non convincing argument. And the idea that young people should just adhere to values is not only inconsistent with the idea that the elders are more logical, since that is merely an appeal to authority, but also won’t be an argument that a young person will listen to, since in your own words, they are irrational. |
|
|
No, but it means that when kids present arguments that are illogical, they can’t understand that their arguments are illogical. What do you do when your kid is presenting illogical reasons to do or not do something?
> Saying that you can’t rely on them to understand their own shortcomings in their own logic is inconsistent with the idea of logical debate in the first place
You’re right it “is inconsistent with the idea of logical debate”—but that’s exactly my point. It’s simply a fact that kids cannot be relied on to understand the shortcomings in their own logic. The frontal cortex, which is responsible for decision making, is the last part of the brain to fully develop, and it doesn’t happen until the mid 20s. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to make decisions with kids based on “logical debate.”