[quote] Analyzing of children who have been raised in the wild has been done previously, however it was not a controlled experiment and suffered from the inability of the test subject to comprehend anything.[/quote]
there is no reason to believe that no matter how it was performed that the test subject would ever be able to "comprehend anything." so i don't think really anything would be learned if this was a problem in a controlled or uncontrolled experiment. and, no, i don't see any value in the study even if successful, so i certainly don't agree with its proposal.
English
-
I worded that badly, she was able to learn rough English, and American Sign Language, later on in life she lost her speaking abilities but is still able to Sign with people, but that has been noted to be caused by further physical and mental abuse after she was moved in and out of foster homes and mental institutes, and her mother didn't let the scientists and doctors study her. The problem is, when I said it was "uncontrolled" I should have expanded on that, she was locked up in a room from 20 months - 13 years old by her father, physically abused so that she wouldn't make noise, and strapped to a toilet, almost completely immobilizing her. This could have completely changed the outcome of what happened.
-
oh yeah, to me that is a totally different scenario than the one you are proposing. however, i often find that part of good scientific study is not always trying to see if one can, but rather stopping once in a while and asking whether one should. Google, "10 times the world almost ended." you will see some things there which were proposed but never executed which could have ended the world. obviously it would seem that locking a child up would not "end the world" per se, but still the consequences are unknown, and the risks to me seem to outweigh the benefits. not to mention the moral dilemma i would have doing that to any child, especially having a child of my own.