If many people have presented you with an argument for something, and upon analyzing it you found those arguments to be invalid, you can form a prior that arguments for that thing tend to be invalid, and therefore expect to be able to rationally dismantle any particular argument.
You can’t know that in advance!!
If many people have presented you with an argument for something, and upon analyzing it you found those arguments to be invalid, you can form a prior that arguments for that thing tend to be invalid, and therefore expect to be able to rationally dismantle any particular argument.
Now the danger is that this makes it tempting to assume that the position that is argued for is wrong. That’s not necessarily the case because very few arguments have predictive power and survive scrutiny. It is easy to say where someone’s argument is wrong, and the real responsibility for figuring out what is correct instead has to be picked up by oneself. One should have a general prior that arguments are invalid, and therefore learning that they are wrong in some specific area should not by-default be a non-negligible update against that area.