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.

Cheers!

-James Rogers
 jamesr@best.com