Final answer:
Van Helmont's conclusion challenges the balance between reason and belief, while Leibniz's rejection of a premise shows the conflict in proving a hypothesis. The evaluation of arguments through rational frameworks can be compelling, but skepticism and the need for further evidence remind us that scientific knowledge is provisional.
Step-by-step explanation:
Van Helmont's conclusion and Leibniz's reasoning pose interesting challenges to philosophical methodologies. Leibniz rejects the second premise of a syllogism to hold his belief that this world is the best of all possible worlds. While this may seem like a leap of faith rather than a rational deduction, it underlines the conflict between reason and belief. Moreover, it exemplifies how evidence sometimes cannot definitively prove or disprove a hypothesis or viewpoint.
Furthermore, when examining an argument, the laws of thought, Ockham's Razor, and the principle of sufficient reason provide a framework to advance rational discourse. However, while your friend's rational approach to an answer might be convincing, skepticism about the reasoning process can be healthy. The need for additional evidence or perspectives and the understanding that scientific knowledge is provisional, continuously open to revision and falsification, are crucial in evaluating whether an argument holds true.