When to claim assembly failure and when not to claim it

Thanks.
I did think of something like that, but as you said to some extent you just rolled the question back one point’ Is our understanding of how to categorize things actually just due to intuition?
Can it be argued that this fallacy is actually a significant argument in favor of strong armagnetism?

I can't think of a general definition, and it seems to me that there isn't one. Indeed, intuition is useful here as everywhere. Even if you had a definition, it is nothing more than a description of your intuition. It doesn't fundamentally change the situation.
I am not familiar with the concept of the "composition fallacy", although I understood from you that you meant the assumption that the characteristics of the components necessarily also characterize the complex. I don't see the slightest argument in favor of strong emergentism here. At most, it is just a description in different words of the assumption of emergentism (not necessarily strong. The example of weight that you gave is clearly weak emergentism), and not an argument in its favor. Strong emergentism does not belong here at all.

Shalom Rabbi,
I think the claim that the fallacy of composition works in favor of strong emergentism is quite clear.
After all, strong emergentism claims that there can be phenomena that exist at the macro level that do not exist at the micro level, and yet they are not derived from some sum (and so on) of phenomena at the micro level.
This is precisely the fallacy of composition, which can be a property of a single element that does not appear at the general level.
For example, the claim that each brick weighs a little and therefore the entire wall weighs a little is a false claim and fails in this fallacy.

The same idea exists in strong emergentism, for example, those who claim this about consciousness claim: the fact that every neuron does not have consciousness does not mean that consciousness will not appear in the sequence of all neurons.

I will explain again.
1. The failure of composition is not an argument in favor of emergentism but itself argues for emergentism itself. Just as the law of gravity is not an argument in favor of the phenomenon of gravity, it is simply a description of it. In other words, someone who accepts emergentism will not see composition as a failure. So what argument is there here?
2. The weight of a wall compared to a collection of stones is a bad example, because it is weak emergentism. The heavy weight is the sum of the light weights, and therefore the macro property is explained by the properties of the micro. The question of whether there is strong emergentism speaks of properties of the macro that cannot be applied to the micro at all. The debate is about this and only about this.

2. You are right, it is indeed a reverse dogma.
1. I did not understand what he meant by claiming emergentism itself? Anyone who accepts strong emergentism will accept the claim that this is a fallacy, just as anyone who also claims weak emergentism. So I did not understand the division.
B. How is it possible not to see this as a fallacy? After all, empirical tests show this easily.

1. Exactly. And that's why the fallacy of composition adds nothing to the discussion. You make a claim A in favor of a claim B. But if only those who accept B accept A, what have you made? Especially since A is nothing more than a different formulation of B.
B. In weak emergentism, it is indeed empirical (and trivial. Who disputes that?). But regarding strong emergentism, I explained in my book that there is never even the possibility of an empirical test that would show strong emergentism. And that's all we're talking about here. “fallacy of composition” is just a fancy word for trivial or incorrect nonsense.