本課程的具體實施目標有六項：
1. 能明白邏輯思維的特徵
2. 能認識並操作形式邏輯的基本理論及推論
3. 能分辨形式邏輯與非形式邏輯的差別
4. 能了解非形式邏輯推論的應用場合與規範準則
5. 能體會在進行日常推論行動時，批判與同情理解能力的重要性
6. 透過課程學習以及評量活動的設計，發展並陶養學生進行多元思考、團隊合作、溝通協調、正確的價值判斷、以及以有效率的方式解決問題等多種能力。並透過期中考核、校園公民提案、邏輯語用學習法、以及與個人主修課程的融會互通的思考，引導學生理解，不論在專業領域或是私人生活的領域，對於一個論題的主張與否決，必須多元的融合各種領域的知識，透過邏輯的嚴格批判，以及倫理的同情理解，方能合理的、與眾合同的建立一個合情合理的現代公民論述。There are six specific implementation goals for this course:
1. Be able to understand the characteristics of logical thinking
2. Be able to understand and operate the basic theories and inferences of formal logic
3. Be able to distinguish the difference between formal logic and informal logic
4. Be able to understand the application situations and norms of informal logical inferences
5. Be able to appreciate the importance of critical and sympathetic understanding when making daily inferences
6. Through the design of curriculum learning and assessment activities, develop and cultivate students' multiple abilities such as diverse thinking, teamwork, communication and coordination, correct value judgment, and efficient problem solving. Through mid-term assessments, campus citizenship proposals, logical pragmatic learning methods, and integration and interoperability with personal major courses, students are guided to understand whether they advocate or reject a topic, whether in the professional field or in the field of private life. It is necessary to diversify the knowledge in various fields, through rigorous criticism of logic, and sympathetic understanding of ethics, in order to establish a reasonable and reasonable modern citizen discourse in a reasonable and consistent manner.
通識課程不同於專業課程，實乃著重引導學生主動關懷、探索與實踐人類的終極價值與智慧；同時通識課程所提供的知識，不是專業課程的淺薄化，而是具有厚實感的基礎知識。本校根據創校傳統、校訓與辦學理念訂定通識教育定四大基本素養：求真素養、篤信素養、力行素養與宏通素養，以具體落實本校通識教育之理想。希望本校學生能發揮自主學習精神，在通識課程老師的引導下，逐漸培養其通識教育基本素養，並期待能終身學習。各種基本素養並訂有具體的學習成效指標，以做教學與學習成效之自我檢證的具體指標，分述如下：求真素養（自然領域）：1.學習自然科學的方法或哲學以探索物理與生命世界的微妙，2.發揮就事論事的精神，3.能參與科學議題相關的公共事務。篤信素養（人文領域）：1.學習人文精神以探索內在自我與領會人類文明的深層價值，2.發展自律精神，3.能運用理性進行道德推理。力行素養（社會領域）：1.運用社會科學的方法或哲學以激發學生的傾聽與溝通能力，2.承認與尊重多元差，3.實踐民主審議的精神。宏通素養（跨領域）：1.追求人類的整體價值，2.融通求真、篤信、力行等素養於個人生命之中。各領域的課程對於學習成效指標可以跨選，不必拘泥。
General courses are different from professional courses. They actually focus on guiding students to actively care for, explore and practice the ultimate value and wisdom of mankind. At the same time, the knowledge provided by general courses is not the superficiality of professional courses, but basic knowledge with a solid sense. . Based on the school’s founding tradition, school motto and school philosophy, the school has formulated four basic qualities for general education: truth-seeking quality, belief quality, practical quality and general quality, in order to concretely implement the school’s ideals of general education. We hope that our students can develop their independent learning spirit and gradually develop their basic literacy in general education under the guidance of general education teachers, and look forward to lifelong learning. Each basic literacy has specific learning effectiveness indicators for self-examination of teaching and learning effectiveness, which are described below: Truth-seeking literacy (natural field): 1. Learn the methods or philosophy of natural science to explore physics and the subtleties of the living world, 2. Use the spirit of discussing matters as they are, 3. Be able to participate in public affairs related to scientific issues. Belief literacy (humanities field): 1. Learn the humanistic spirit to explore the inner self and understand the deep value of human civilization, 2. Develop self-discipline, 3. Be able to use rationality for moral reasoning. Practical literacy (social field): 1. Use social science methods or philosophy to stimulate students' listening and communication skills, 2. Recognize and respect diversity, 3. Practice the spirit of democratic deliberation. Hongtong literacy (cross-field): 1. Pursue the overall value of human beings, 2. Integrate qualities such as truth-seeking, faith, and practice into personal life. Courses in various fields can choose from different learning outcome indicators, so there is no need to be rigid.
本課程將以教師自編教材為主，但每週將會指定同學閱讀一些重要文獻或批判性的思考一些與生活相關的議題。
以下為進階參考閱讀料：
形式邏輯部分：
1. H. Kahane, Logic and Philosophy: A modern Introduction, Univ. of Maryland, 1986.
2. I. Copi and C. Cohen, Introduction to Logic, Macmillan, 1994.
3. 《邏輯》，熊明輝，王文方著，滄海書局，2011。
4. 林正弘著，《邏輯》，三民書局出版，2002。
5. 台灣大學理則學教學委員會編著，《理則學新論》，正中書局，1995。
批判思考與非形式邏輯部分：
1. Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 1977. Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
2. Anthony Weston. 2000. A Rulebook for Arguments. Cambridge: Hackett Publish Company.
3. Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
---. 1996. Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
---. Types of Dialogue and Burden of Proof, http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/10commaBoP.pdf---. Enthymemes, Argumentation Schemes and Topics http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/09EntScmTop.pdf
---. Informal Logic and the Dialectical Approach to Argument
http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/07JBfestIL.pdf
4. https://github.com/carneades/carneades
5. Http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk
6. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers.htm
7. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
8. 武宏至，周建武，唐堅合著，2009，《非形式邏輯導論》，北京：人民出版社。
9. 徐金雲，2010，《亞里斯多德《修辭學》中的語用空缺》問題研究：一個當代非形式邏輯的考察》。
---. 2012，〈證明的責任與批判的責任 --- 視覺化的論證圖示與法律推理〉，第八屆東亞法哲學研討會會議論文集。
---. 2012，〈實踐推論語用教學法—以交通大學通識教學為例〉，《通識教育學刊》，2012六月號，頁85-112。
---. 2012，〈論證模式與理由—一個非形式邏輯的評價問題〉，2012 年全國現代邏輯學術研討會。中國大陸：上海。
This course will mainly use textbooks compiled by teachers, but each week students will be assigned to read some important literature or think critically about some life-related issues.
The following are advanced reference reading materials:
Formal logic part:
1. H. Kahane, Logic and Philosophy: A modern Introduction, Univ. of Maryland, 1986.
2. I. Copi and C. Cohen, Introduction to Logic, Macmillan, 1994.
3. "Logic", written by Xiong Minghui and Wang Wenfang, Canghai Bookstore, 2011.
4. Lin Zhenghong, "Logic", published by Sanmin Book Company, 2002.
5. Compiled by the Logos Teaching Committee of National Taiwan University, "New Theory of Logos", Zhengzhong Book Company, 1995.
Critical Thinking and Informal Logic Section:
1. Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 1977. Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
2. Anthony Weston. 2000. A Rulebook for Arguments. Cambridge: Hackett Publish Company.
3. Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
---. 1996. Argument Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
---. Types of Dialogue and Burden of Proof, http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/10commaBoP.pdf ---. Enthymemes, Argumentation Schemes and Topics http://www.dougwalton.ca /papers%20in%20pdf/09EntScmTop.pdf
---. Informal Logic and the Dialectical Approach to Argument
http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/07JBfestIL.pdf
4. https://github.com/carneades/carneades
5. http://araucaria.computing.dundee.ac.uk
6. http://www.dougwalton.ca/papers.htm
7. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
8. Wu Hongzhi, Zhou Jianwu, and Tang Jian, co-authors, 2009, "Introduction to Informal Logic", Beijing: People's Publishing House.
9. Xu Jinyun, 2010, "Research on the Pragmatic Vacancy in Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Examination of Contemporary Informal Logic".
---. 2012, "The Burden of Proof and the Burden of Criticism --- Visual Argument Illustration and Legal Reasoning", Proceedings of the Eighth East Asian Legal Philosophy Symposium.
---. 2012, "Practical Inference Pragmatic Teaching Method—Taking the General Education Teaching of Jiaotong University as an Example", "Journal of General Education", June 2012, pp. 85-112.
---. 2012, "Argument Patterns and Reasons—An Evaluation Issue in Informal Logic", 2012 National Modern Logic Academic Symposium. Mainland China: Shanghai.
| 評分項目 Grading Method | 配分比例 Grading percentage | 說明 Description |
|---|---|---|
| 期中考期中考 midterm exam |
30 | |
| 小組期末報告小組期末報告 Final report of the group |
30 | 老師評10分，同學互評10分，期末修正報告10分 |
| 期末考期末考 final exam |
30 | |
| 上課出席點名上課出席點名 Attend roll call in class |
10 |
