Logical thinking is the ability to incorporate the understood rules of basic logical inferences in daily activities. The ability to think is a universal human trait, in regards to the rules of basic logical inference, and has been referred to as a higher cognitive skill (Houdé & Charron, 1995). In psychology, the field of cognitive child psychology has been highly dominated by the psychologist Jean Piaget and his studies considered fundamental to the field. Jean Piaget has identified four stages of cognitive development. The first stage is the sensory-motor stage which starts at the time of birth to the age of two. At this stage, the child learns to experience things physically and grasps symbols. The second stage is the preoperational stage that starts at the age of 2 to the age of 7. At this stage, the child can use symbols but cannot understand that mathematical or logical operations can be reversed. The next stage is concrete operations stage that begins at the age of 7 to the age of 11. It is the stage that the child is ushered at logical thinking, that is, they are able to understand principles like cause and effect. The last stage in Piaget’s stages of cognitive development is the formal operational stage. This stage begins at the age of 12 to adulthood. It is when the child is introduced to abstract thinking. Therefore, it means that the child is exposed to thoughtful operations that do not require relations phenomena or concept (Piaget & Inhelder 2013). The assignment is aimed at proving whether the child can think logically or not. In my discussion I will base on the Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, to formulate my opinion on whether a child can think logically or not.
From Piaget’s cognitive development scheme, logical thinking is operational. It, therefore, means that logical thinking does not appear at any stage before the concrete operational stage (Piaget & Inhelder 2013). Even though most of the psychologists have been agreeing with Piaget’s development theory, subsequent recent research has made the researchers to doubt these concepts. These researchers question the idea that no logical thinking appears at the preoperational stage. For instance, the research that was done by Camilo Charron and Oliver Houde, it was affirmed that the children who were unable to perform extensional logic tasks were also not able to practice intentional logic. In that research, intention defined the properties of that class whereas extension defines what or who can be the member of the class (Houdé & Charron, 1995). The findings from the research were not concurrent with Piaget’s theory. According to Piaget, preoperational children could practice intentional logic of which was incomplete logical thought and in his own view, pre-logical (Piaget & Inhelder 2013).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In addition, Houde and Charron were able to identify an operational proto-logic in children that were pre-logical according to Piaget. Instead of purely intentional or fully-fledged logical thoughts, they decided to investigate the mental process using illogical behavior. Basing their experiment in the group of children between the age of five to eight, a group at the boundary of the preoperational and operational stage, they focused on intentional logics (Houdé & Charron, 1995). Even if the experiment where some red objects are not included in red object class in a Piagetian sense is strictly illogical, the behavior can only be determined by irrational thinking. Pascual Leone, on the other hand, refers to the act of perceiving an act with exclusion as a misleading scheme. However, according to Charron and Houde, the child is able to understand the intentional logic but stumbles at the inclusion due to perceptual factors. Therefore it is evident from Charron and Houde that at the age of seven when the child moves from non-inclusion to inclusion, the behavior does not reflect pre-logic to logical thinking as Piaget suggest, but indicates the presence of the inhibiting mechanism whereby the child neutralizes the confusing effect of perception on cognition (Houdé & Charron, 1995).
Most of the philosophers specializing in the field of childhood have found that logical thinking of a child is not minimized to intentional logic. Many statements made by a child, for instance, those involving the idea of possibility and necessity exhibit a grasp of modal logic. The fact that the mind of a young child easily fits into intentional logic, shows that a child’s logical thoughts might yield a fresh surprise (Houdé & Charron, 1995). The significant relevance of Piagetian and post-Piagetian findings on logical thinking in children is that they have shed light on the significant role played by non-mental and non-logical factors in the formation of a child’s logical thoughts.
In summation, yes a young child can think logically. To determine that a child thinks logically, one should not base his or her argument on inclusive logics but you should also investigate the mental process of the child. Apart from the logical and mental factors, there are also non-mental and non-logical factors that define a child’s thought. Despite the Piaget’s finding on cognitive developments, there are other findings that have added value to Piaget’s findings. These findings have proven that operational stage is not the beginning of logical thought. Even a young child can think logically.
Reference
Houdé, O., & Charron, C. (1995). Catégorisation et logique intensionnelle chez l'enfant. L'année psychologique, 95(1), 63-86.
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (2013). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence: An essay on the construction of formal operational structures (Vol. 84). Routledge.
