You have interesting points but I feel you are jumping to conclusions. 'Curiosity not judgment' is a great rule for me, at least, because I rarely know enough to judge. Criticizing without knowing almost certainly makes me wrong, produces nothing, and costs me the opportunity to do something useful. It also wastes time and energy for multiple people.

It also is unfair to the experimenters and alienates them, when they could become allies and improve their methods. It alienates others; it makes you seem defensive and someone who lashes out unfairly - who wants to be involved with that? Even if the researchers agreed, would they want to have this judgmental, attacking person around?

For example, someone could ask: 'Hi - This is quite innovative. How are the animals introduced to the setup, trained, and experimented with? Are they basically required to play? What if they stop? Do they want to stop at the end of the session? Do they seek it out? Are there signs of stress or enjoyment? There is a bunch of innovation in animal research on giving them choices, and as we learn more about animal emotions and intelligence it makes much more sense to consider these things. This experiment seems like a perfect setup to explore some of those things; I'd love to engage with you on it, and/or here are some links to learn about it ...'. The researchers might love to help.

Maybe you know all that. I just hate to see good causes turned into alienation.

> Even if the researchers agreed, would they want to have this judgmental, attacking person around?

1. You calling the person above judgmental and attacking is not as tolerant either.

2. What about things that are morally wrong? Slave owners wouldn’t want to have a judgmental attacking person around either. Does that mean we have to have curious-discussions about slavery?

[dead]