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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that If Pascal's claim that 'reason can decide nothing here' is interpreted as a decision under uncertainty (no probability assigned), then the argument is apparently valid

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Decision theory under strict uncertainty still requires that outcomes be commensurable, which Pascal's infinite utilities preclude.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Maximax and maximin rules for uncertainty yield conflicting prescriptions when infinite values appear in multiple columns of the decision matrix.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Ian Hacking's 'many gods' objection shows that uncertainty frameworks generate contradictory dominant strategies, undermining the argument's validity claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ellsberg's work on ambiguity aversion demonstrates that rational agents systematically resist maximization under complete uncertainty, not merely under risk.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'reason can decide nothing' entails genuine epistemic paralysis, no decision rule—including dominance reasoning—can be legitimately applied to the wager.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A decision under uncertainty assumes no probability is assigned to outcomes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pascal's statement that reason can decide nothing may imply a decision under uncertainty framework
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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