Re: Friendly Existential Wager

From: James Rogers (
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 17:45:51 MDT

On Fri, 2002-06-28 at 13:39, Mark Walker wrote:
> I know that many understand Pascal's argument to be fallacious, I have never
> heard of it referred to as a fallacy.

Pascal's wager doesn't break down nicely into a single fallacy; it
depends on how you look at. I would generally classify it as invalid
first-order logic, but I can see how one could also deconstruct it as a
syllogistic fallacy.

> My argument has a similar form
> but it is hardly an exact parallel. For example, in Pascal's Wager I only
> risk my soul, here everyone else is at risk.

Yes, that's why it appeared to be a bizarrely constructed false
analogy. It wasn't clear why it was even mentioned. Mostly though, the
definitions used were so loose that it raised the specter of being
invalidated first-order logic by way of ambiguity.

> Ironically, your post comes pretty
> close to the fallacy of guilt by association.

Perhaps, but this was mostly just my interpretation of what you wrote.
Apparently I read it differently (or was using different definitions)
than you intended. Some fallacies can be construed as such by the simple
fact of skewed premises, lacking rigorous construction.


-James Rogers

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT