C---------

[Edwardo Piet]

[...] But what would be the best way to go about it? Ideally, a person's maturity could be measured by scanning or testing... but how would it work, and is it even possible?... those are difficult questions to answer, and (as i said before) would require a great deal more research done by brilliant neuroscientists and psychologists and other smart people.

(my bolding)

I really do apologize I missed you saying that bit :S Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I am glad I see where you're coming from here now though - yeah, I agree with your speculations, I just don't know of any possible alternative...at least yet.

I also am uncertain of the best way to fix the current problems with 'the system'... although I do have many ideas on the matter My goal here isn't so much to show what is right... but to show what is wrong.

That's fine. But to stick with the imperfect is the best there is if we don't know of any better alternatives yet and that can consistently can work, otherwise we'd have chaos.

Because we don't want to commit the Nirvana fallacy here, which is the notion that if a solution is not perfect then it's a bad one. (I'm being hypothetical here, not saying you're committing it, just saying where not to tread).

And yes, EvF: I am always speculating Even if I may sound like 'my mind is made up'... I assure you this: I am always thinking about how I could be wrong... and trying to rectify those wrongs when they present themselves.

That's cool. Same here, I'm not even made up about "God" - because you can't prove a negative, I believe it's possible (or at least possibly possible ) that God exists, it's just as I'm as sure he doesn't exist as I can be about anything.

It's always important to never completely close of the mind and to speculate. I admire you for that.

Indeed, it's possible to be very passionate about something but still be speculating on the side and not closing of your mind...still being open to possibles.

As an existentialist... it would be very silly of me to place anything at all under the realm of fact. Instead, I absorb 'knowledge' based on whether or not I can refute it. If I cannot refute it: I consider something likely to be true. If I can refute it: I discard that refutable thing as remembered waste. And as I know I could be wrong about my refutation: I only rarely throw the waste out of a window

That's all admirable. Good qualities - if you're only speculating until, and if there's a better alternative that's fine. As you said you've already got some ideas that's fine.

Of course you could could think of ideals better than the age method, but are just - at least so far - impossible to properly, fairly and consistently put into practice. In principle they may be more fair than the current method, because they're so idealistic, but despite the fact you see the current method is unfair (both in principle and in practice I assume?), in practice the idealistic alternative might be even worse until it actually works of course. This is the problem - idealistic principles need to work in practice.

But I also love speculating, that's no problem. That's why I like philosophy basically.

I only wish more people would speculate with me We could probably fix a lot of problems in our society

I try, I just try not have an "aha" moment prematurely.

I am 100% all for speculating at all times. But I'm not going to support an alternative until I know of any that in practice can work better than the current method of dealing with an issue. On the other hand, speculating on, and supporting looking into the possibility of an alternative, and evaluating whether it would, could and how it would work or not - I'm 100% in favour of of course.

f only the unthinking majority were not fine with the status quo. And soberingly... that same contentedness with the status quo can spread to some of the most influential and thoughtful members of a society. o.o

Years ago I thought about how age restrictions are imperfect. But so is basically everything else...

So 1. This doesn't mean we should look into the possibility of better alternatives, research is important.

And 2. ...this also means that until there's a better alternative, one shouldn't prematurely work with one that doesn't work/could do more harm than the current on, despite it's imperfection.

It's better to stick with a bad option than an alternative that, despite possibly being better (or even much better) in principle, is worse in practice than the current option.

As I said above, we wouldn't want to commit the Nirvana fallacy here, as I mentioned up above,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy.

Finally, please don't think I'm criticising your speculating , there's nothing wrong with speculating, I adore speculating It's harmless in and of itself, it's benign and also, it's basically the mind being exercised whether it's put into practice or not.

EvF