Argument Strength and Intuitions

CF rejects the ordinary notion of argument strength. In ordinary discourse we say things like "strong argument", "weak evidence", "partially refuting". CF treats all of these as mistakes.

Why CF rejects "strength"

• Either an argument refutes or it doesn't. Decisive or indecisive.
• "Strong" is just a feeling. Feelings are uncorrelated with being right.
• "Weak" arguments shouldn't get partial credit. They should be improved, not weighted.
• Strength implies credences — "this argument is 70% refuting."

What about intuitions?

CF treats intuitions similarly:

• Intuitions can be right or wrong. They're a non-refuted IGC at best.
• They shouldn't override objective reasoning.: Reasoning is public; intuitions are private.
• They can be automatized to capture good patterns.
• They can be a source of bias.: Pre-existing intuitions colour new arguments.

What CF recommends

1. State the argument explicitly. Don't gesture at strength.
2. Find a decisive criticism. If you can't, the argument doesn't refute.
3. If it's indecisive, improve it. Look for the decisive version.
4. Don't count "strong feeling" as evidence. It isn't.
5. Practice good intuitions by automatizing good patterns.

Why this is hard

• Most people use "strength" all the time. It feels natural.
• Intuition is fast and confident. Reasoning is slow and tentative.
• Public discourse uses "strength" as a hedge.

CF doesn't say intuitions are useless — it says they should be non-refuted IGCs, not authorities.

"Debate, Criticism, Argument Strengths and Intuitions" is a CF essay title. — criticalfallibilism.com