How the knowledge of the different fallacies can help you to think better?

Question

give an example..

Answer 1

Fallacies according to whom? A fallacy for me may not be a fallacy for you. Define fallacy, maybe that would help us to think better!

Answer 2

Do your homework yourself ( Kidding)

Answer 3

Whitehead stated the most common fallacy is that of overgeneralization.

Knowing such a thing helps remind to differentiate, not overgeneralize, etc.

The basic motif for knowing of fallacies seems to be awareness of patterns, including fallacious patterns, into which latter one is propelled by inordinate emotion (energy-in-motion).

"A Philosophy of Universality," O. M. Aivanhov.

Answer 4

they really helped my relationship.  my bf and I took ethics together and now every argument (on my side) is a red herring . he can name them all day long. annoying.

Answer 5

I agree with the first answer, and apparently "different fallacies" has replaced the word stereotype in today's PC word. God bless America.  

Answer 6

Types of fallacies

In logical arguments, fallacies are either formal or informal. Because the validity of a deductive argument depends on its form, a formal fallacy is a deductive argument that has an invalid form, whereas an informal fallacy is any other invalid mode of reasoning whose flaw is not in the form of the argument.

Beginning with Aristotle, informal fallacies have generally been placed in one of several categories, depending on the source of the fallacy. There are fallacies of relevance, fallacies involving causal reasoning, and fallacies resulting from ambiguities (or equivocations). Most common forms of fallacies are evident in political speeches.

Recognizing fallacies in actual arguments may be difficult since arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between assertions. Fallacies may also exploit the emotional or intellectual weaknesses of the interlocutor. Having the capability of recognizing logical fallacies in arguments reduces the likelihood of such an occurrence.

A different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies is provided by argumentation theory; see for instance the van Eemeren, Grootendorst reference below. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals which attempts to resolve a disagreement. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, and violations of these rules are fallacies. Many of the fallacies in the list below are best understood as being fallacies in this sense.

Fallacious arguments involve not only formal logic but also causality. Others may involve psychological ploys such as use of power relationships between proposer and interlocutor to establish necessary intermediate (explicit or implicit) premises for an argument. Fallacies often have unstated assumptions or implied premises in arguments that are not always obvious at first glance.

Note that providing a critique of an argument has no relation to the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion could very well be true, while the argument as to why the conclusion is true is not valid. See argument from fallacy.

Example

The following argument is posited:

Cheese is food.

Food is delicious.

Therefore, cheese is delicious

Example 2

One posits the argument:

Nothing is better than eternal happiness.

Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.

Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy