Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Ian Hacking's canonical analysis of the Wager identifies ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Pascal's equiprobability argument does not speak to those in his audience who do not assign probability 1/2 to God's existence.

    Ian Hacking's canonical analysis of the Wager identifies equiprobability as a load-bearing assumption, not a rhetorical flourish, making it structurally essential.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Hacking demonstrates Pascal removes equiprobability only through informal rhetoric, not formal argument, suggesting it's foundational to the logical structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without equiprobability between God's existence and non-existence, the infinite expected value calculation that drives the Wager's conclusion collapses entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hacking's textual analysis shows Pascal never justifies why we should accept unequal priors, indicating equiprobability operates as a silent structural requirement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Pascal's Wager functions via dominance reasoning (finite loss vs. infinite gain), which remains valid regardless of prior probabilities assigned to God's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Calling equiprobability 'load-bearing' conflates necessary for Hacking's particular reconstruction with necessary for Pascal's actual argument structure and persuasive force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical context shows Pascal explicitly invoked pragmatic reasons to believe (habit, community) that bypass probabilistic reasoning entirely, undercutting equiprobability's centrality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Calling equiprobability 'load-bearing' conflates necessary for Hacking's particu...Hacking demonstrates Pascal removes equiprobability only through informal rhetor...Hacking's textual analysis shows Pascal never justifies why we should accept une...Historical context shows Pascal explicitly invoked pragmatic reasons to believe ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Pascal's Wager functions via dominance reasoning (finite loss vs. infinite gain)...Pascal's equiprobability argument does not speak to those in his audience who do...Without equiprobability between God's existence and non-existence, the infinite ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)