From: James Rogers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
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
> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT