“The noblest work of education is to make a reasoning man, and we expect to train a young child by making him reason! This is beginning at the end; this is making an instrument of a result. If children understood how to reason they would not need to be educated.”
– J.-J. Rousseau, excerpt from Emile.
On the surface, these several sentences seem ironically true. But upon deeper reflection, these ideas are much like a beautiful cake that tastes bad. Before I pinpoint some of the catastrophic problems with this line of thinking, I should present the context that Rousseau was living in for the sake of intellectual fairness. The modes of learning during Rousseau’s lifetime were schools run by the Catholic church (or some other religious institution), local village schools, or individual teachers who were taking on students. Once children aged out of these modes, parents could send their children to colleges where more specialized topics like engineering, science, math, etc. were taught. As it could be intuited, schools like these were limited to the classes of people who could afford it. In 1750, literacy rates in Europe, with the exception of the Netherlands, floated around <50% with France not even breaking 30%.[1] All of this is to say that education and education research were nowhere near as developed as they are today.
From my estimation, the glaring problem with Rousseau’s line of thinking is that it combats a straw man. His argument neglects gradience in favor of simple categories. Is the “noblest of work of education to make a reasoning man”, or is it to make a man capable of reasoning to a particular threshold? The latter is obviously superior. A man who reasons erroneously is nevertheless still reasoning.
In response to Rousseau’s quip about expecting students to use the very reason educators are trying to teach them I reply: Exactly! To withhold reason from the process of teaching someone how to reason would be like withholding water from the process of teaching someone how to swim! Of course the reasoning of a child younger than 18 is likely primitive, but why must that stop them from practicing and receiving feedback on their ideas?
But why must we even teach reason? What’s the point? Why shouldn’t we just let children be children and leave the thinking to adults? My answer is twofold. First: By inspiring and guiding the youth of today, we invest in future discoveries and developments. Second: Teaching the youth (specifically ages 15-18) the fundamentals of logic, science, math, and critical thinking will better equip them against nefarious individuals who will try to seize power, money, or influence when they become adults.
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason.
[Paine]
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/literacy#historical-change-in-literacy