The problem with this approach is that the brains of children aren’t fully developed until their mid-20s: https://journeytocollege.mo.gov/when-does-the-brain-reach-ma.... You can’t have a system based on who has the more logical argument when some parties are incapable of understanding the shortcomings in their own logic. It’s also the case that many things are not amenable to logical analysis, and humans must instead formulate actions based on values and precedent. Young people generally have less capacity to appreciate how adhering to these values will work in their favor in the long run.
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.
> Just because they [aren’t] fully developed doesn’t mean the argument they are presenting isn’t logical.
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.”
> You must treat every argument you hear as if were generated in good faith.
Many arguments are generated carelessly or maliciously, in which case you will be swamped by bullshit or actively infected with a conspiracy theory. I know better than to trust my own logic brain completely, especially in the short-term. What's that bumper sticker, "Don't Believe Everything You Think"?
Perhaps in some cases that is true.
I was raised this way from as young as I can remember. My parents were reasonable and logical, and we could debate like adults. Whomever had the better position got to convince the other.
That factoid has been pretty thoroughly debunked: the original study did not test people beyond their mid-20s, and the finding was "brains continue developing for as long as we tested".
The most current understanding tells us that brains never stop developing. So there's no specific line we can draw and say "before this point, people's brains are not fully developed, and thus they should be treated as children; after this point, they are fully developed, and we should treat them as adults." Not even in the usual kind of population-average way.
Yes, all else being equal, younger people have less experience, understanding, and ability to reason logically than older people who have gained experience, learned more things, and practiced logic. And yes, there's absolutely a period of childhood where many of our particular cognitive faculties are still developing for the first time. But "your brain is only fully developed once you hit 25 years old" is absolutely untrue.
