The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Logic should be taught at a younger age

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
robin.murphy1999 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 100580
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I believe that Logic should be taught at a much younger age to improve critical thinking, arguments, and to open the door to different career choices such as programming and mathematics. A more educated populous is also good because people become more open minded and open to differing viewpoints. America seems to be lacking in these areas as shown by our world ranking for education and loss of more advanced jobs such as programmers and doctors. Our current polarization when it comes to social issues is a problem in its own right. Critical thinking is an extremely important skill in today's career fields. It allows an individual to be innovative, a better problem solver, and more open minded to any new idea they may run across. Not only is it an important skill for jobs but it also pushes individuals to look past their own perceptions, biases, and world-view, which is good for any culture.


first, i would simply like to clarify what my opponent defines as " a much younger age". logic is a process of thinking that which we employ to create valid and accurate responses to situations utilizing tools such as deduction, induction, intuition,the scientific method etc.. even in primary school, some degree of logical thinking is imparted by educating children to our arsenal of identifiers such as colors, letters and numbers that which bring meaning to our society through art, language and mathematics for example using these identifiers to comprehend and interact with each other bringing about a sense of mind in which children comprehend that other individuals have consciousness in the same way they do. even games played in kindergarten such as hide and seek can also arguably invoke a logical thinking process in which the seeker must induce the most likely location one would choose when seeking to remain undetected ( putting one self in someone else's shoes - intuition).
Debate Round No. 1


When I said much younger age I meant late elementary or middle school because a base understanding of math and language would be needed in order for logical reasoning to make sense. Logic, to your point, is taught passively from the time we first step in school through various methods like math. What I'm referring too is Logic as it's own subject, language, and process. If schools were to integrate logic into the curriculum side by side with math and language, the understanding and application of the other subjects would improve. Understanding how to construct a sentence is one thing, understanding what is meant is another. Language is extremely illogical and messy; hyperboles, analogies, oxymorons, and sarcasm aren't logical and those are just a small amount of what we do every day in language. Understanding how to construct a proper argument or how to break down someone else's points is not taught until late high school and college.


However logic processes are not teachable - they are skills adapted as time goes by. critical thinking, intuition, deduction are all subconscious processes that cant be taught directly. of course understanding how to deduce a fact or to analyse critically can be advised on, the actual process isn't standardized and is unique to all individuals. it is this qualia that we base our opinions on. even the scientific method is subject to some degree of personal opinions, observing how ants always walk in straight lines, one could hypothesis that they have brains capable of memorizing specific routes through a jungle and write a report where the experiment simply observed ants always walking down the same routes. this would be one persons way of understanding a situation through deduction. though the process of investigation is standardized an individuals interpretation rarely ever coincides with the actual truth as truth in its self is never stagnant. ants don't memories courses like we do with maps, they simply follow a trail of feremones left behind by scout ants that venture out randomly to find food and make it back to the mound. though logically if ants walked the exact same path every time one could easily deduce that they know exactly where they are and where they are going which however isn't true. and this is why logic isn't something you can impart perfectly.

it is possible to teach some one how to spell the word nature however you cant teach someone how to correctly understand nature. because there is no correct logic is a tool that individuals use to figure out a situation, there is no correct way of using a tool, it would be like trying to teach someone how to feel the exact same emotion of the exact same magnitude and intensity as you did when you stubbed your toe on the leg of a table 5 years ago, you can advise a person on how to think logically however because there is no correct way of using logic , you cant teach logic, as to teach it would mean to be able to impart a correct method of understanding a situation and there is no correct way. a hammer can also be used as a fishing hook for big fish.

would you please clarify as to what you meant by ". Language is extremely illogical and messy; hyperbole, analogies, oxymoron, and sarcasm aren't logical and those are just a small amount of what we do every day in language" as what you have listed are simply literary devices that which simply enrich writing and cant be illogical as such a statement is equivalent to saying it doesn't make sense where in truth they do make sense as they are used to make writing more interesting - hyperbole is a form of exaggeration, oxymoron is a form of contradiction and sarcasm is a form of mockery that which when used in literature makes the text more interesting and appealing to read, they aren't debatable concepts that which you could claim are" illogical" because they already make sense in that they are also identifiers like numbers and letters. its like saying the rhyming is illogical and messy but it just means that words sound similar - like, bike, mike.
Debate Round No. 2


Logic is a step by step process that we as humans can apply to any situation to try and discover the truth. The process of logic can be learned and refined through a teachable lesson. "Critical thinking, intuition, deduction are all subconscious processes that cant be taught directly." this claim is not the same as the logical process I'm referring to. My claim is stating that the sooner that humans understand the process of logic and how to accurately utilize it, the sooner they can apply the process to anything in their lives and find the truth behind whatever it is they apply it to. Your examples are simply the way we think and reason from experience, not the literal process of logic. You mention that deducing facts and critical analysis can be advised on, yet say those things aren't standardized to which I would disagree. The process of breaking down data or a statement can be consistently reproduced, this is exactly what we base our facts of life and laws of nature on. If the logical process was inconsistent the field of science would be vastly different. Qualia is the subject experience that each individual has but through deduction, we can find the truth behind the experience. Your sense of red and blue and my sense of those colors may be different but we can agree that they are uniquely separate from one another and when combined they form something different. Eventually, we would reach the same conclusion of what those colors are, even though our experience of the colors may be different (this is the mind-body sensation problem but that's beside the point). The example I just used can be applied toward anything and that process is essentially what the scientific method does through repeated test to draw similar conclusions. If A=B and B=C the only logical conclusion is that A=C. There can be no other interpretation that is true, assuming the premises are also true.

Your ant example seems flawed because the logic that ants always walk in a straight line, therefore ants must have brains is not deductive but rather inductive. Using assumptions based on experience is not logical deduction. Ants walking in a similar straight line does not necessarily mean they are memorizing their path, but as you later pointed out they send scouts to lead the way.

I disagree with your claim that you cannot teach someone how to understand nature, could elaborate on why you don't think it's possible? I'm also confused when you wrote " it would be like trying to teach someone how to feel the exact same emotion of the exact same magnitude and intensity as you did when you stubbed your toe on the leg of a table 5 years ago, you can advise a person on how to think logically however because there is no correct way of using logic ". Could you explain in more detail? From what I understand you are saying that because logic is a tool we use to find truth, and because tools have no true way of being used, then logic cannot be used to describe the sensation you felt when stubbing your toe? Truth needs to be able to be recreated and consistent in order for it to to be true. The literal sensation of stubbing your toe cannot be shared by others in the same way it was to you, but the process of stubbing your toe can still be tested by others and repeated. If it is repeated, and the outcome is consistent, then the sensation you felt was probably true. If you cannot repeat something or the results are inconsistent, then whatever it is you are testing cannot be considered true.

Contradictions and exaggerations are not possible when finding truth. If you have any contradictions or exaggerations in a claim, it cannot be entirely true. "The circle had 4 sides", this claim cannot be true based on our knowledge of circles. "My dad is the strongest man in the world", while not necessarily false, this claim would need to be researched in order for it to be truthful. Just because we use these methods to make communicating more interesting, doesn't mean they are truthful. Rhyming doesn't change the outcome, it just compares words that sound alike. Logic deals with the truth and human language can manipulate the truth to sound better, these things are not one in the same.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Critical thinking and logic....Can not be taught.. But allowed. What is not allowed will be taugth anyway by logic and critical thinking.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.