THE UNCERTAINTY ANSWER TO INVALID SYLLOGISMS IN CHILDREN
Keywords:
Uncertainty reasoning, Invalid syllogisms, Uncertainty justifications, Dialogue with the experimenterAbstract
This study analyses the uncertainty reasoning which
happens in invalid syllogisms. It is proposed a kind of analysís which
highlights the process through which the logical necessary uncertainty is
reached, integrating the test situation and the dialogue with the
experimenter. 48 children aged seven and nine years old were tested in invalid syllogism problems. This task engaged the children in a previous
agreement before an evaluation and justification explanation of the
syllogistic conclusion were required. The seven years old children used to
change their answers during the dialogue with the experimenter, finally
attaining the correct answer. With the nine years old children we found an
increase of the wrong answers, followed by uncertainty justifications. This
fact can be due to the resistance of the uncertainty answers, evident in
the nines more than in the sevens or, also, to variations due to the
dialogue with the experimenter. It is suggested that the process through
which the children attain the necessary uncertainty includes a mechanism
for highlighting the linguistic material which composes the syllogism,
which include the initial agreement and also the dialogue with the
experimenter.
Downloads
References
Markman (Orgs.). Handbook of Child Psychology. Vol. Ill (Editor geral, P. H.
Mussen). New York: Wiley.
Byrne. R. M. J. M989). Suppressing valid inferences with conditionals. Cognition,
31. 61-83.
Byrnes. J. P.. & Overton. W. F. (1986). Reasoning about certainty and uncertainty in
concrete. causal, and propositional contexts. Developmental Psychology, 22,
793-799.
Copi. I. M. (1978). Introdução à lógica. São Paulo: Editora Mestre Jou.
Dias, M. G. (1988). Logical reasoning. Tese de doutorado. Inglaterra: Universidade de Oxford.
Dias. M. G., & Harris. P. L. (1988a). The effect of makebelieve play on deductive reasoning.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 6, 207-221.
Dias, M. G., & Harris, P. L. (1988b). Realidade x fantasia: sua influência no raciocínio
dedutivo. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 4, 55-68.
Dias, M. G.. & Ruiz, E. L. (1990). Bloqueando a conversão inválida. Arquivos Brasileiros de
Psicologia, 42, 66-77.
Hawkins. J., Pea, R. D.. Ghck. J.. & Scribner, S. (1984). "Merds that laugh dont like
mushrooms": Evidence for deductive reasoning by preeschoolers. Developmental
Psychology, 20, 584-594.
Kuhn, D. (1977). Conditional reasoning m children. Developmental Psychology, 13. 342-353.
Moshman. D., & Franks, B. A. (1986). Development of the concept of inferential vali-dity. Child
Development, 57, 153-165.
Moshman, D., & Timmons, M. (1982). The construction of logical necessity. Human
Development, 25, 309-323
Overton. W. F.. Ward, S. L, Novek. I. A.. Black, J.,& OBnen, D. P (1987). Form and content m
the development of deductive reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 23, 22-30.
Piaget, J. (1947). La psychologie de 1'mtelligence. Paris: A. Colin.
Piaget. J.,& Inhelder, B. (1955). De la logique de I'enfant a la logique de ladolescent. Paris:
P.U.F.
Rumam. B.. Connell. J., & Brame. M. D. S. (1983). Conversational comprehension processes
are responsible for reasoning fallacies m children as well as adults: if is not the
biconditional. Developmental Psychology. 19, 471 -481.
Scribner. S. (1977), Modes of thmkmg ano ways of speaking: Cultureand logic recon-sidered.
Em P. N. Jonhson-Laird. & P. C. Wason (Orgs.). Thinking. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Shapiro. B. J., & OBnen. T. C. (1970). Logical thmkmg m children aged six through thirteen.
Child Development, 41. 823-829.
Simões, P. M. U. (1991). Os peixes voam ou o sal é doce: resolução de silogismos em
crianças. Dissertação de Mestrado. Recife: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.
Wildman. T. M.. & Fletcher. H. J. (1977). Developmental mcreases and decreases m solutions
of conditional syllogism problems. Developmental Psychology, 13, 630-636.
