We Should Question Authorities
We should not always trust our various authorities.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Authorities: politicians/scientists/experts/etc should be questioned and not trusted blindly because there is no suh thing as a pefect authority in any area or subject
Every subject/issue is drenched in opinions/on-the-other-hands; authorities wish to be seen as perfect 'authorities': people who have all the answers.
They have a tendency to exploit their position by representing their own subjective/untested opinions/ideas/passions/lineages as fact. And therefore should be scrutinized(get second opinions when visiting a doctor; listen to both sides of an argument et cetera).
I feel that all authorites are imperfect yet this should not be the sole reason to question them, do you doubt or question an imperfect circle because of its imperfection? or do you question it because of the message it tells you, its telling you a lie... i.e. that circles are not perfect (regular) this circle would be an elipsiss.
We should question authority only on the grounds that the message or information they give is not true or could be made truer, a crazy, mad angry scientist could present an ir-refutable theory , yet by your reasoning which should question the speaker not the things they say.
We should then, only question that which is fallible and that which could be improved. We should question what the authorities say, not what they are.
We are fallible
Also by questioning authorities we can improve them, i.e. Einstein could not have improved his unification theory of everything if he was not questioned, if the mother was not questioned then she and the son will not do whats best on these situations, by questioning authority we enable debate and we enable a rational insight into the best conclusion.
It is the most essential 'should' in humanity, for rebellion, controversy etc. are at the heart of human progression. By not questioing and doubting mainstream views we never get a chance to reflect on whether these veiws are the best or not and , if we do not question we end up staying in the same place. By questioing we do not bring bad effects, what are the cons of curious questioning? and do these outweigh the positives i have just mentioned?
Conclusion: We should questioin authority on almost every issue.
To much information doesn't get heard.
Yes; once authority is questioned, people in authority are on their toes; that is careful not to do things that are questionable.
Or at least (the thing I'm assuming you're tugging at; since I can't make the 'read-stuff-question'-connection) make an effort to hide/cover-up questionable activities.
But Assuming that authority was not questioned/kept-in-check/accountable, then it will be hypothetically all-revealing(though this is not necessary since leaders will/did have the choice to be 'above' sharing information as it will-have/had no consequence/meaning to the public) then we'd have a repetition of the 'divine rule of kings'/rulers-above-the-law.
Even with free-flowing information since authority will not be questionable/bounded-by-law; any shared political information will-be/was useless.
Why is the authority figure there?
Not helpful to whom?
Home-schooled kids are performing better in tests and exam(ination)s than many of their school-going counterparts.They're closer to their families and are considerably less inclined towards using recreational drugs,weapons etc.
"Most authority figures need to be questioned but not always by those who they have authority over."- Agreement?
What do you think?