Duration
20h Th
Number of credits
| Bachelor in law | 3 crédits | |||
| Bachelor in law | 3 crédits | |||
| Bachelor in political sciences : general | 5 crédits |
Lecturer
Language(s) of instruction
French language
Organisation and examination
Teaching in the first semester, review in January
Schedule
Units courses prerequisite and corequisite
Prerequisite or corequisite units are presented within each program
Learning unit contents
Both teaching and assessment are only available in French language !
The course will be centered around the problems of defining criteria allowing to distinguish between correct and incorrect reasonings. It will also be a question of identifying typical errors of reasoning.
First chapter will we be concerned by specificities of non deductive argumentation. Second chapter will deal with non deductive argumentation schemes and fallacies. Third chapter will focus on deductive reasonings and formal methods for assessing them.
Learning outcomes of the learning unit
Good command of a few theoretical notions of logic and argumentation theory.
Ability to identify argumentation schemes as well as to estimate their correction on the ground of relevant critical questions.
Ability to formalize deductive reasonings and to assess them through formal methods.
Ability to create short reasonings in accordance with some logical forms, dialectical principles or rhetorical figures of speech.
Prerequisite knowledge and skills
Secondary education. Good command of french language.
Planned learning activities and teaching methods
Oral presentation, reference book, e-learning website, exercise classes with an older student.
Mode of delivery (face to face, distance learning, hybrid learning)
Face-to-face course
Further information:
The course will take place during the first term (September-December) on Thursdays from 8:00 to 10:00 am. Place : amphi Noppius (Bât. O2, place de la République française).
Course materials and recommended or required readings
Reference book : BOUQUIAUX L. and LECLERCQ B., Logique formelle et argumentation, Bruxelles, De Boeck, 3rd edition, 2017.
References :
On formal deductive logic :
ARISTOTLE, Organon, livre II : les premiers Analytiques, traduction Tricot, Paris, Vrin, 1936.
COPI I. M., Introduction to logic, 8ème edition, New York, Prentice-Hall, 1998.
GOCHET P. et GRIBOMONT P., Logique I, méthodes pour l'informatique fondamentale, Paris, Hermes, 1990.
LEROUX J., Introduction à la logique, Diderot Editeurs, 1998.
LUCAS T. et al., Initiation à la logique formelle, Bruxelles, De Boeck, 2007.
QUINE W. V. O., Méthodes de logique, Paris, Armand Colin, 1984.
VERNANT D., Introduction à la logique standard, Paris, Flammarion, 2001.
On argumentation theory :
HUBIEN H. ed., Le raisonnement juridique, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1971.
KALINOWSKI G., Introduction à la logique juridique, Paris, LGDJ, 1965.
PERELMAN C. et OLBRECHTS-TYTECA L., Rhétorique et philosophie : pour une théorie de l'argumentation en philosophie, Paris, PUF, 1952.
PERELMAN C. et OLBRECHTS-TYTECA L., La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation, Bruxelles, Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 1992.
PERELMAN C., Justice et raison, Bruxelles, Presses universitaires de Bruxelles, 1963.
PERELMAN C. ed., Les antinomies en droit, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1965.
PERELMAN C. ed., Le problème des lacunes en droit , Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1968.
PERELMAN C., Eléments d'une théorie de l'argumentation, Bruxelles, Presses universitaires de Bruxelles, 1968.
PERELMAN C., Logique et argumentation, Bruxelles, Presses universitaires de Bruxelles, 1968.
PERELMAN C., Le champ de l'argumentation, Bruxelles, Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 1970.
PERELMAN C., La règle de droit, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1971.
PERELMAN C., Logique juridique, Paris, Dalloz, 1976.
PERELMAN C., L'empire rhétorique : rhétorique et argumentation, Paris, Vrin, 1977.
PERELMAN C. et FORIERS P., La preuve en droit, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1981.
PERELMAN C. et VANDER ELST R., Les notions à contenu variable en droit, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1984.
PERELMAN C., Le raisonnable et le déraisonnable en droit : au-delà du positivisme juridique, Paris, LGDJ, 1984.
SCHMETZ R., L'argumentation selon Perelman. Pour une raison au coeur de la rhétorique, Presses Universitaires de Namur, 2000.
TOULMIN S. E., Les usages de l'argumentation, Paris, PUF, 1993.
VAN EEMEREN F. et GROOTENDORST R., La nouvelle dialectique, Paris, Kimé, 1996.
VAN EEMEREN F. et al. ed., Fundamentals of argumentation theory, Mahwah (New Jersey), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
VAN EEMEREN F. ed., Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, Amsterdam, Sic Sat, 2001.
VANNIER G., Argumentation et droit, Paris, PUF, 2001.
On argumentation schemes and fallacies :ARISTOTE, Organon, livre VI : les réfutations sophistiques, trad. Tricot, Paris, Vrin, 1939.
ARNAULD A. et NICOLE P., La logique ou l'art de penser, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1965.
COPI I. M. et BURGESS-JACKSON K., Informal logic, 3ème édition, London, Prentice Hall, 1996, chapitre 3.
FISCHER D. H., Historian's fallacies, Londres, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.
HAMBLIN C. L., Fallacies, Londres, Methuen & Co, 1970.
HANSEN H. V. et PINTO R. C. ed., Fallacies, Classical and contemporary readings, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
MILL J. S., Système de logique déductive et inductive, Paris, Felix Alcan, 1896, livre V.
WALTON D., Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning, London, Routledge, 1995.
WALTON D., REED C. et MACAGNO F., Argumentation schemes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
WOODS J. et WALTON D.,Critique de l'argumentation, logique des sophismes ordinaires, Paris, Kimé, 1992.
Exam(s) in session
Any session
- In-person
written exam ( multiple-choice questionnaire, open-ended questions )
Further information:
Written exam (both Multiple Choice Questions and written assignment) in January and September. The exam may also be taken in June by first year students.
No student will be allowed to take the exam on another day than the other students.
A short (optional) essay in two parts could exempt the student from two questions of the written exam (counting for 5 points out of 20).
This essay will consist in
A. MUST BE UPLOADED ON E-CAMPUS BEFORE NOVEMBER 16 2025:
1) problematic inference (after 1/9/2025) spotted in the media (source must be joined as an attachment);
2) clear recontruction of the analysed inference;
3) identification of the inference scheme used.
Max. 1500 signs
This first task will be assessed before November 30 and will lead to a mark on 3 pts. Only the students who have at leasr 2 pts can go on for task B.
B. MUST BE UPLOADED ON E-CAMPUS BEFORE DECEMBER 14 2025:
Elements 1), 2), 3) as before +
4) adequate critical questions;
5) a decision on whether the inference is correct or fallacious.
Max. 5000 signs (in total)
This second task will be assessed before December 31 and will lead to a mark on a further 2 pts (i.e. 5 pts in total).
Organisation of the thought, clarity and accurateness of the expression, correct language are part of what will be marked.
November 16 and December 14 are the deadlines after which no essay will be taken into consideration.
Use of AI (ChatGPT and any other tool for analyzing data, summarizing texts or writing essays) :
See https://www.student.uliege.be/cms/c_19230399/en/uliege-charter-for-the-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-academic-work
Work placement(s)
Organisational remarks and main changes to the course
Besides the teaching a few exercice sessions will be organized by an older student.
The first session will be held on Thursday the 18th of September 2025 at 8:00 am.
Contacts
Bruno LECLERCQ Département de Philosophie Place du XX août, 9 (2ème étage) 4000 Liège B.Leclercq@uliege.be
Association of one or more MOOCs
Items online
e-campus
Website