That all sounds like a starter pack for arguing like undergraduates--one accusing the other of this fallacy that, while being insufficiently critical of--or even outright oblivious to--the premises they're starting from.

Would probably be better served digging into epistemology, all of the great philosophers, and if you want to start getting mathematical about it, look into Judea Pearl's books.

For something less academic, Ray Dalio is a surprisingly good resource in this area.

I second your recommendations and would like to add the blog "Farnam Street." [1] Mostly because, when it comes to reading, it emphasizes comparing and contrasting books and evaluating arguments and having them checked by others.

Getting your arguments checked by others is critical to making sure your arguments actually make sense in form.

Furthermore, if you are interested in getting started with philosophy I would recommend starting with some books in the "Very Short Introductions" series. Not all of them are good but some of them are and enough of a jumping off point.

[1]: https://fs.blog/blog/

edit: added link

My 2c: I don't know how long or good those particular courses are. They do sound short. (There are many good books on those and similar topics) But if you think, talk, engage in conversations/debates/arguments, write (which I think everyone does) you can't but help 'using the knowledge practically', I should think. The more you understand arguments, fallacies, inductive and deductive reason, the better.

The logic one sounds less practically useful in everyday life (except maybe in analytic philosophy, computer science or linguistics.) The thinking course probably would cover the logic useful in everyday thinking/talking/writing. I hadn't heard of Herbrand logic, but judging by [0] it sounds more like the kind of thing used in programming (lambda calculus/functions and BNF/parsers/compilers) than in traditional logic. But sure, if you find it fascinating, go for it.

[0] http://intrologic.stanford.edu/notes/chapter_09.html

It depends on what you want to accomplish but if you want practical skills such as being able to convince people of your ideas or leaving positive impressions and getting the outcomes you want, I would suggest studying psychology, specifically evolutionary psychology and psychological biases, as well as communication.

Only in an academic setting does anyone care whether or not an argument is valid or sound or even know what those two mean.

Get to know somebody who is a (constructive) critical thinker, and spend time with them. Read books by people who are good critical thinkers. If you want to develop a practical skill, watch people who are good at it doing it.

Oh, and as hashr8064 said: Constructing a logically sound argument is one thing - bringing your opinion across to someone else is an entirely different matter. Learn communication skills, and don't neglect the social aspect of an argument ;-)

In my opinion, reading this will be more helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Indicators_of_th...

If you are on those courses, you are likely to be logical enough. Learning to sense misinformation and how to counter and work though it would then add more value to you.

Note: The 4th part, How to Avoid Fallcies, may already be covering the above, though possibly not since the link above only gives "indicators" of "possible" presence of pseudoscience. Avoiding fallacies is different from avoiding pseudoscience.

All of this can also make your life more challenging since you are not and would not be a typical person, but living with many of them. So make sure to master people skills too unless you are already there.

"Rationality: From AI to Zombies" and SlateStarCodex are what you're looking for. These are by far the best resources to learn practical rationality and logical thinking.