Learn them one at a time, in such a way as you start seeing the pattern. Human brains are great pattern recognition machines, which is also where the errors come in. That’s okay: you want both zones to fire, so the cognitive dissonance forces you to consciously think about a potential fallacy.

You don't have to do this. Instead of memorizing fallicies, you can approximate the quality of nearly all arguments to two theory-of-truth claims:

1. The premises are themselves valid: you buy that they are truthful. 2. The argument's logic coheres: when added to your existing beliefs there is no contradiction.

Fallicies manifest through violations of these claims. But you don't have to know the name of that violation to raise a complaint: you can derive it on the spot. Discussing these fallicies mostly acts as a practice tool, and provides a useful bit of jargon if you are writing philosophy and need to convey the idea quickly. But most arguments in online spaces are dismissed with: "the premise is invalid" or "the reasoning is incoherent."

Find good examples that are easy to understand and absurd enough to stick in your head. For example (ha) the fallacy of composition Wikipedia page has a good one[0]:

> "This tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle of which it is a part is also made of rubber."

The fallacy of division page[1] also has a good one:

> 1. The second grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream

> 2. Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson elementary

> 3. Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream

You can also categorise large numbers of common fallacies, for instance fallacies of relevance, and then - which is the larger point about fallacies - you don't need to know which exact fallacy someone has committed (they don't care, for one) but you know it's fallacious because what their argument relies upon is irrelevant.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

Edit: formatting

There's more like over 200 logical fallacies.

A good starting point is https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Z-Nigel-Warburton-ebook/dp/B...

You don't keep them in mind. You build processes and algorithms and habits to avoid them. When you learn to ride a bike or play baseball, you don't learn the laws of physics that govern the flight of the ball or the ride on the bike in detail - though basic awareness of gravity and such surely helps. You learn the process that gets you to the goal. Unfortunately, we're way behind on such processes, compared to baseball.

You don't need to know them all for them to be useful (this falls into what the poster calls the "black and white" fallacy.

Note that I took care to point out that I didn’t believe it was not useful but had trouble with applying them personally. I am not asserting that they’re not useful.