I think "free will" is a whole other can of worms, but do we all have a valid option of holding a demonstrably wrong view? I think no, not if we want to call ourselves rational beings (which is also debatable).
2) Is the violation of this freedom the basis for war, violence, conflict––not progress?
There might be conflict initially, but in the long term irrational, "wrong" as in demonstrably false, beliefs slow progress and therefore should be dispelled. We can tolerate some unproveable "wrong" opinions until they impede progress, but when they do eventually, they need to be addressed.
3) Are there productive benefits to arguing with people?
Depends on whether there is a decision to be made in the near future that would affect the well being of someone. Also depends on whether the other person is open to changing their mind. If no and no, then it's a pointless waste of time, like arguing on the Internet. Otherwise it is useful if only to plant a seed of doubt in the wrong view or entertain a different perspective in case we might be the ones in the wrong.
4 ) If so, what would the boundaries of those discussions / arguments / or debates be
Depends on the level of familiarity of the parties. It's possible to have a person close enough that you can talk to them and argue about anything and then choosing not to engage with others on any topic at all.
1) Do we have the free will to be wrong?
I think "free will" is a whole other can of worms, but do we all have a valid option of holding a demonstrably wrong view? I think no, not if we want to call ourselves rational beings (which is also debatable).
2) Is the violation of this freedom the basis for war, violence, conflict––not progress?
There might be conflict initially, but in the long term irrational, "wrong" as in demonstrably false, beliefs slow progress and therefore should be dispelled. We can tolerate some unproveable "wrong" opinions until they impede progress, but when they do eventually, they need to be addressed.
3) Are there productive benefits to arguing with people?
Depends on whether there is a decision to be made in the near future that would affect the well being of someone. Also depends on whether the other person is open to changing their mind. If no and no, then it's a pointless waste of time, like arguing on the Internet. Otherwise it is useful if only to plant a seed of doubt in the wrong view or entertain a different perspective in case we might be the ones in the wrong.
4 ) If so, what would the boundaries of those discussions / arguments / or debates be
Depends on the level of familiarity of the parties. It's possible to have a person close enough that you can talk to them and argue about anything and then choosing not to engage with others on any topic at all.
Nice thought-provoking topic, thanks!