The Philosophy for Children program is truth-centered. The fallacy is a technique by which false and untrue information is made appear true and correct. Lipman found it possible to recognize logical fallacies from the fifth grade through philosophical stories (H1). The purpose of the present study is to test this hypothesis. For this purpose, the effect of teaching philosophy for children (P4C) on the identification of fallacies was investigated using a semi-experimental method with a pre-test and post-test, as well as a control group. The experimental group was taught philosophy for children during 10 sessions of 90 minutes, but the control group did not receive any intervention. The story of Harry Stottlemyre's discovery, which is about reasoning and logic, was used. The logical fallacies recognition scale by Al-Mosavi, which was designed for elementary school, was used as a tool. The subjects included fifth-grade students in the academic year 2023. Data analysis was done using the ANCOVA method. The results indicated that the Philosophy for Children program significantly enhanced the recognition of logical fallacies (Ƞ² = .61). Consequently, Lipman’s hypothesis was validated, demonstrating that P4C had a substantial impact on children’s ability to identify logical fallacies.
 
 
 
Keywords: Philosophy for children, Lipman, Logical fallacies, Fifth Grade elementary Students
Introduction
The concept of fallacy predates the establishment of Aristotelian logic. Aristotle’s predecessors were well aware that false reasoning can take on the appearance of truth (Wood, 2012). The concept is implicit in the contrast between good arguments and deceptive arguments, which in turn reflects a more general distinction between appearance and reality. One function of reasoning is therefore to prove the truth of propositions that are sometimes and deliberately made to appear true, an error called logical fallacies. In general, the traditional concept of fallacy refers to an argumentative error that people generally commit with considerable frequency. The question is, “How do humans acquire the ability to detect logical fallacies?” and “Is there a principled way to adjudicate such disagreements?” Aristotle assigns the solution to the examination of fallacies to the domain of logic. In On Sophistical Refutations, he classified fallacies. One solution to the identification of logical fallacies was proposed by Matthew Lipman (1976) with the founding of the Philosophy for Children (P4C) program, one of the goals of which is teaching logical reasoning in childhood. In his book Thinking in Education, he emphasizes that what we call "critical thinking" is in fact a new version of ancient intellectual concerns that have been formed with the birth and development of human civilization. Lipman then introduces judgment as an outcome of critical thinking, explains the concept of judgment, discusses criteria and their relationship to critical thinking and judgment, examines the modifiable nature of critical thinking and its sensitivity to context, presents specific criteria for good reasoning (such as relevance and adequacy), and discusses different types of fallacies. From his perspective, training for logical thinking is equivalent to training for critical thinking; training for learning is as effective as training for critical thinking. In this book, Lipman asks the question, "Can children be taught logical reasoning?" and seeks the answer in philosophical stories. According to Lipman, the ultimate goal of each session of a research community is a provisional judgment that is achieved through logical reasoning in a free and respectful dialogue, where students learn from each other that research has procedural rules that are logical and ethical in nature. Among the studies in the field of philosophy for children in Iran, almost no studies have been conducted on logical fallacies and Lipman's hypothesis has not been tested. On the other hand, children in Iran are exposed to a lot of false information due to the spread of media and social networks, which requires the ability to recognize logical fallacies. Therefore, the main question of the present study is: "Does teaching a philosophy program for children have a significant effect on recognizing logical fallacies?"
 
Materials & Methods
The present research method was a quasi-experimental type with a pre-test-post-test design and a control group. Before implementing the design, both experimental and control groups were pre-tested. Then, the philosophy education program for children was implemented as an intervention on the experimental group, but the subjects in the control group did not receive this intervention (philosophy for children). Finally, both groups of subjects participated in the post-test. Due to the existence of an independent and dependent variable, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare before and after the experimental procedure (Van Breukelen, 2006). The pre-test and post-test were measured by the logical fallacy scale (Al-Mousavi, 1400), which was designed for the elementary school. Finally, the research data were analyzed by observing parametric assumptions, using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) method, and using SPSS version 22 software. Then, by forming a philosophical story exploration circle, the subjects were introduced to the principles of philosophy for children (P4C) in 10 90-minute sessions. The description of the philosophy for the children's educational package (content and how children's conversations progress) is as follows. Because the aim of the present study was to test Lippmann's hypothesis, Harry Stottlemeier's Discovery story, which was designed for the fifth grade of elementary school, was used. The topic of this story is the nature of reasoning, logic, reasoning, and causality. The subjects included 50 fifth-grade students in the philosophical story exploration circle (25 in the experimental group and 25 in the control group), who were randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups.
 
Discussion & result
The difference between the experimental and control group subjects in terms of the logical fallacy variable was significant at the level of (P<0.001). Therefore, it can be said that the implementation of the philosophy education program for children had a significant effect on the identification of logical fallacies. The effect (eta coefficient) of philosophy education for children on the identification of logical fallacies was equal to (Partial Ƞ²=.61), which means that 61 percent of the difference between the experimental and control groups in the identification of logical fallacies is related to philosophy education for children. In explaining this finding, it can be said that despite the age of childhood and adolescence, which is also the age of searching for reasons to prove their beliefs rather than the truth (Nippold, 2023), and at such an age, logical fallacies align with their personal biases (Kramer, 2023), if children and adolescents are placed in appropriate educational conditions that include rich participatory experiences based on critical discussions such as the Inquiry Circle, then they can develop logical reasoning skills, and these abilities are of considerable value for their future challenges in the new era (de Chantal et al. 2020; Heled et al. 2022; Demir-Lira et al. 2021; Coetzee et al. 2023). On the other hand, new findings, while challenging Piaget's theory of cognitive development, concluded that by teaching children logical reasoning, regardless of maturity, children's thinking becomes more abstract and logical (Feiman et al. 2022; Józsa et al. 2023a), which was in line with the findings of the present study.
 
Conclusion
The Philosophy for Children program significantly enhanced the recognition of logical fallacies. Consequently, Lipman’s hypothesis was validated, demonstrating that P4C had a substantial impact on children’s ability to identify logical fallacies.