The reason this (splitting the argument into many small pieces) is a problem is that sometimes, checking an argument by going over it with a microscope isn’t sufficient.
If the checker is mostly reliable but fallible, a long-enough inferential chain can defeat any specific amount of reliability, making the checker useless at best and maybe even deceptive.
However, even though it is a flaw, it’s not a fatal flaw. We can strongly prefer smaller arguments, and maybe there are other techniques too (representing is-a-refinement-of explicitly?).
The reason this (splitting the argument into many small pieces) is a problem is that sometimes, checking an argument by going over it with a microscope isn’t sufficient.
If the checker is mostly reliable but fallible, a long-enough inferential chain can defeat any specific amount of reliability, making the checker useless at best and maybe even deceptive.
However, even though it is a flaw, it’s not a fatal flaw. We can strongly prefer smaller arguments, and maybe there are other techniques too (representing is-a-refinement-of explicitly?).
Sure. But it doesn’t seem preferable to just not go over arguments piece by piece.