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、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。本課程「邏輯與批判性思考」的主要課程內容與特質為希望同時透過形式邏輯(formal logic)與非形式邏輯(informal logic)的推理與論證的框架，探討現代公民在其公共領域以及私人領域的生活中，如何理性地、批判地以及同情理解地接受一個觀點或否決一個觀點。作為一種能在實踐生活中面對具體的人生處境進行說服論證的推論必須是「以知識為基礎」(knowledge-based)、「由目的所驅動」(goal-driven)、「以行動為導向」(action-directed)的，就推論框架層面來說，它要求論述主體必須具備一定的知識承載度，必須明智的針對論述所面對的對象以及所欲達成的行動加以整合，同時透過一種多元地、合乎邏輯原則地、以最好的語言安排以及言論者在形象上的一種可信賴的特質的傳達，共同完成該次論述。
在學習活動上，本課程要求修課同學必須具備多元思考、溝通協調、價值判斷、以及問題解決等多種能力的綜合；在課程的題材上，課程教師將會以發生在具體人生處境各種言論場合與各類型媒體中（如日常溝通、法院、議會、電視名嘴、醫學診斷、現時社會事件以至著名的歷史事件等）具有爭議性的事件，引導同學同時以批判的以及同情理解的角度加以審視，換句話說課程所涉及的主題本身是有著有一定程度的公共性而非抽象的在概念之間進行推出操作。在這當中，學習活動中將安排學生針對現實議題進行研議。此外，課程亦將適當引導同學理解這種語言技術是一種能適用於人類任何的語言論述的具體處境中的理性論述。透過主題討論，引導同學分析並理解實踐生活中論證行動的前提的開放性、過程的動態性、論證策略與批判策略的多選擇性以及結論的可廢止性等特徵。

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, communication and coordination, correct value judgment, and efficient problem solving. The main course content and characteristics of this course "Logic and Critical Thinking" are to explore how modern citizens accept or reject an opinion rationally, critically and sympathetically in their lives in the public and private spheres through the framework of reasoning and argumentation of formal logic and informal logic. As a kind of persuasive argument in the face of specific life situations in practical life, inference must be "knowledge-based", "goal-driven", and "action-directed". As for the inference frame At the architectural level, it requires that the subject of the discussion must have a certain degree of knowledge, and must intelligently integrate the objects faced by the discussion and the actions to be achieved. At the same time, the discussion must be completed through a pluralistic, logical, principled, best language arrangement, and a trustworthy image of the speaker.
In terms of learning activities, this course requires students who take the course to have a comprehensive ability of multiple thinking, communication and coordination, value judgment, and problem solving; in terms of the subject matter of the course, the course teacher will use the topics that occur in various speech situations and various types of media (such as daily communication, courts, parliaments, television, etc.) in specific life situations. Controversial events such as celebrities, medical diagnoses, current social events and famous historical events are guided to guide students to examine them from a critical and sympathetic perspective at the same time. In other words, the topics involved in the course themselves have a certain degree of publicity rather than abstract operations between concepts. Among them, students will be arranged to conduct discussions on real-life issues during learning activities. In addition, the course will also appropriately guide students to understand that this language technology is a rational discussion that can be applied to any specific situation of human language discussion. Through topic discussions, students are guided to analyze and understand the openness of the premises of argumentation actions in practical life, the dynamics of the process, the multiple options of argumentation strategies and critical strategies, and the defeasibility of conclusions.

本課程以教師自編講義為主。另有建議參考閱讀資料。

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. 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.
3. Tversky A. & Kahneman D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases--biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185, 1124-1131.4. 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。
---. 2013，醫科大學的邏輯與批判性思考教學，高醫通識教育學刊，第八期，頁1-23。
---. 2014，回溯推論與批判性思考，高醫通識教育學刊，第九期，頁25-53。

This course is mainly based on handouts compiled by teachers. Additional readings are recommended.

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. 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.
3. Tversky A. & Kahneman D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases--biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185, 1124-1131.4. Xu Jinyun, 2010, "Study 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.
---. 2013, Teaching logic and critical thinking in medical universities, Journal of Higher Medical General Education, Issue 8, pp. 1-23.
---. 2014, Retrospective inference and critical thinking, Journal of Higher Medical General Education, Issue 9, pp. 25-53.