Many weak arguments vs. one relatively strong argument

Abstract

Many epistemic frameworks rely on focusing on finding a single relatively strong argument. In this work, we argue that instead of focusing on a single strong argument, one should rely on many weak arguments. We recognize that while one may find a single relatively strong argument, this can lead to unstable epistemology, where one’s views on important questions are quite unstable and alter with incoming evidence. An alternative to this is to rely on many independent weak arguments. If the weak arguments collectively support a position, that’s the position that one should take. This many weak arguments approach can be used to make claims with high probability, even if each individual argument is weak. While it may seem that a single relatively strong argument is more reliable, that is not necessarily the case, and a reliance on many weak arguments has some advantages over a single relatively strong argument. – AI-generated abstract