But logical arguments are not a matter of opinion, they are a matter of logic. Picking apart logical arguments piece by piece is not a worthless endeavor; in fact, it is the most worthwhile endeavor. It is how you can see if the argument is even valid in the first place, nevermind sound.

Would you like us to evaluate your work based on logical coherency and validity, or would you like us to evaluate your work based on personal opinion and feeling (like one would, with say, a piece of music)?

...a bunch of pieces does not make a car unless they are putt together...

The answer to your question on one piece of speculative logic may be found easily in another portion of the thesis.

To use this analogy appropriately, the car would be a valid and sound conclusion. The pieces would be valid and sound premises. The pieces would not fit together to form the car if they weren't the correct sizes and shapes, would they? Likewise, the argument will not be logically coherent unless the premises are the correct "sizes" (valid) and "shapes" (sound). Whether it looks sound or valid from a distance means nothing; a car could look new from a distance but may not even start!



I don't understand what this means. The soundness of one part of the argument may be found in another part of the argument? If this is so, then the argument isn't organized, or perhaps this is not an argument at all. We need to be able to see each piece if the pieces build upon one another. Why would we continue agreeing with the rest of the argument if we find the last premise to be suspect?

Someone once said that to trying to philosophize without knowing any logic, is like trying to row a boat without having any oars. In both cases you get nowhere. You just splash around.

Gestalt psychology or gestaltism (German: Gestalt - "form" or "whole") of the Berlin School is a theory of mind and brain positing that the operational principle of the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies, or that the whole is different from the sum of its parts. The Gestalt effect refers to the form-forming capability of our senses, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of figures and whole forms instead of just a collection of simple lines and curves. In psychology, gestaltism is often opposed to structuralism and Wundt. Often, the phrase "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is used when explaining Gestalt theory.

Link: Gestalt psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ignorance is often arrogant...

What does a theory concerning the operation of the brain have to do with evaluating a logical argument?

Gestalt psychology or gestaltism (German: Gestalt - "form" or "whole") of the Berlin School is a theory of mind and brain positing that the operational principle of the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies, or that the whole is different from the sum of its parts. The Gestalt effect refers to the form-forming capability of our senses, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of figures and whole forms instead of just a collection of simple lines and curves. In psychology, gestaltism is often opposed to structuralism and Wundt. Often, the phrase "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" is used when explaining Gestalt theory.

Link: Gestalt psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ignorance is often arrogant...

What does telling me things have a context have to do with evaluating a logical argument, or even the brain theory you just linked me to? :surrender:

Sorry, buddy, I'm really not following you at all.

Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.
The general principle of holism was concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (1045a10).
Reductionism is sometimes seen as the opposite of holism. Reductionism in science says that a complex system can be explained by reduction to its fundamental parts. For example, the processes of biology are reducible to chemistry and the laws of chemistry are explained by physics.

From the preface to Kant's CPR [just before the Introduction]:

"Few only have the pliability of intellect to take in the whole of a system, if it is new

When I first listened to Beethoven's symphonies I nitpicked at them, taking a brief listen to pieces here and there; and I quickly formed the opinion that Bethoven's symphonies were trash.

But logical arguments are not a matter of opinion, they are a matter of logic. Picking apart logical arguments piece by piece is not a worthless endeavor; in fact, it is the most worthwhile endeavor. It is how you can see if the argument is even valid in the first place, nevermind sound.

Would you like us to evaluate your work based on logical coherency and validity, or would you like us to evaluate your work based on personal opinion and feeling (like one would, with say, a piece of music)?

I think, rather than turn this thread into a discussion on how best to invalidate a logical argument, we should give the OP the courtesy of some more direct responses, resulting from a careful read of his material. If his logic doesn't hold up, it doesn't hold up, but we don't need to discuss this if we don't know whether it holds up due to not reading the material.

I've read through most of the argument, just briefly, and it appears that there are a couple of things that do not necessarily follow...or where we need elaborated definitions. But I won't be able to properly respond until I spend more time reading it...not sure if I'll have the time.

Also, to the OP, I did find this argument posted on theologyweb.com, though it has more material. Are you the same author listed for the material on this site, and why did you choose not to post the entire piece?

Thanks.

I really do not know what a "logical argument" is. But in case it means, "valid argument", how could a valid argument be invalidated?

But in case it means, "valid argument", how could a valid argument be invalidated?

It essentially just means a deductive or inductive argument. That's all that's meant by "logical argument".

You're right, though, I think the term can be misleading.

The music analogy I think is appropriate because it shows for me, based upon my personal experience, that a person can fool themselves into believing something is true even though they haven't grasped the whole

Of course Hamlet is a work of fiction. It's not true. And your sublime mental exercise that you've posted above can be proved untrue as long as any individual point is untrue.

Then is any argument (inductive or deductive) logical? Even if it is a fallacious argument?

OP: I'm very sorry about all of these posts unrelated to your work. I understand I've played a part in this, and if you'd like, just ask the moderators to remove or move anything that you feel is derailing your thread. Thanks for your understanding, and I apologize once again.

If he wants to publish a long tome on whatever topic, he can use the blogs. If he's going to post an "argument" in the metaphysics forum, and this argument is longer than Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, then it's ridiculous to expect forum members to read this entire thing in order to participate -- and frankly I reserve the right to critique it however I choose. It's a discussion forum. That's not derailing it.