South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 17, 2019, 04:52:40 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

your logical fallacy is

 (Read 5796 times)
Description: Discovered this website today and is very useful i think.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« on: May 04, 2012, 09:16:22 AM »

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2012, 09:53:36 AM »

Cool!!!

Thanks!
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2012, 11:48:22 AM »

Nice, crisp presentation.  Thanks for the lead, cr1t.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2012, 20:26:01 PM »

Which one of these, would you say, did Blaise Pascal commit in his famous wager?

Rigil
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3094



« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2012, 09:54:33 AM »

Which one of these, would you say, did Blaise Pascal commit in his famous wager?


http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2012, 10:33:10 AM »



Hmmm ... no. Because Pascal presents us with four possibilities, which cover all possible permutations. Assuming that God either exists or doesn't, and that the Christian Dogma holds, we have:

1. God + no faith     -> hell
2. God + faith        -> heaven
3. No God + faith     -> no consequence
4. No God + no faith  -> no consequence


If the false dilemma applies to Pascal's wager, can you point out another (possibly "intermediate") option or scenario?

Rigil
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3094



« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2012, 11:06:55 AM »



Hmmm ... no. Because Pascal presents us with four possibilities, which cover all possible permutations. Assuming that God either exists or doesn't, and that the Christian Dogma holds


That's exactly where I have a problem. It's a false dichotomy because our choice is not "God or no god", our choice is between a multitude of different gods and no god. Believing in god does not send us straight to heaven in the case of existence... We have to believe in the right god.

Thus Pascal pretends the wager is "50/50", and in picking his God we have 100% chance of avoiding hell.... but in reality the wager is ~ 1/3000, meaning we are almost guaranteed to go there.
Logged
cr1t
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



cr1t
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2012, 11:31:55 AM »

Quote

1. God + no faith     -> hell
2. God + faith        -> heaven
3. No God + faith     -> no consequence
4. No God + no faith  -> no consequence


I think there is another problem with it is that if you have faith with only because of fear as hell is that true faith or just insurance,
and surely God would see through that.

The only other problem I can see is that the assumption or bias to a Christian Dogma of Heaven and Hell.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2012, 11:41:14 AM »

Quote
our choice is between a multitude of different gods and no god

Simply believing in competing deities is equivalent to not having faith in (Pascal's) God, and so

1. God + no faith        -> hell
 
as well as

4. No God + no faith  -> no consequence

would still very much apply. You must come up with a scenario such that none of the four possibilities apply in order to prove a false dichotomy.

Besides, Pascal's wager can be easily re-written to accommodate belief in any generic god:

1. Some god + no faith     -> punishment
2. Some god + faith        -> reward
3. No god + faith          -> no consequence
4. No god + no faith       -> no consequence

Rigil
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2012, 11:44:58 AM »

I think there is another problem with it is that if you have faith with only because of fear as hell is that true faith or just insurance, and surely God would see through that.

Getting warmer ... and the fallacy is therefore ...? Cool

Quote
The only other problem I can see is that the assumption or bias to a Christian Dogma of Heaven and Hell.

This assumption is actually contained and addressed in the Wager itself.  Have a close look. If Dogma is false, then God is false, and there is no consequence.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3094



« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2012, 13:40:22 PM »

Quote
our choice is between a multitude of different gods and no god


Simply believing in competing deities is equivalent to not having faith in (Pascal's) God


Which moreover is a form of special pleading. Pascal dismissed the false dichotomy argument by saying that if people just considered Christianity thoroughly, they'd realise it's the "one true" religion. Thus turning the argument back into a dichotomy, layering fallacy upon fallacy.

Quote
1. Some god + no faith     -> punishment
2. Some god + faith        -> reward
3. No god + faith          -> no consequence
4. No god + no faith       -> no consequence


That's nice and all but it's no longer Pascal's wager, as he explicitly stated it above. Making your new form "Rigil Kent's wager". (IOW: You are now making a straw-man argument.)

It is a fact that Pascal's God does not reward "faith in some god", so your assumption of "any god will do" conflicts with Pascal's initial assumption "My god is the true god".

So yes, my opinion is there is a state missing: Wrong God + faith = punishment.

Quote
Getting warmer ... and the fallacy is therefore ...?


True Scottsman? (Making it a third fallacy)
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2012, 14:55:11 PM »

Pascal's Wager is based on an appeal to emotion (fear).  This has no bearing on the factual situation.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2012, 15:14:16 PM »

Pascal dismissed the false dichotomy argument by saying that if people just considered Christianity thoroughly, they'd realise it's the "one true" religion."
That's admittedly a lame dismissal of the false dilemma accusation.  A better counter would have been if Pascal had gone back to first principles, and challenged his critics to come up with a situation in which the conditions that he presented are not met. You would have offered:  

Wrong God + faith = punishment

OK, let's examine this belief in the "wrong god" by fleshing it out with examples:

Assume God (Pascal's God) exists.
Apollo does not exist.
You believe in the Apollo.
You die and go to hell, compliments of God.
Here believing in the wrong god clearly gets you punished.
It is equivalent to 1. God + no faith -> hell

Assume God (Pascal's God) does not exist.
Apollo exists.
You believe in God.
You die and Apollo turns you into a bottle of Diet Cherry Cola.
In this case, your scenario is indeed unique, and equivalent to
No God + no faith -> softdrink

Ouch,  Cry well played, Boogs! It looks like Pascal is relying on the non-existence of other gods after all. His argument fails because there is no prediction of what sort of punishment or reward they will dish out once we kick the bucket.

Incidentally, my reason for re-writing the wager in more general terms was to illustrate that it is still fallacious even though it is strengthened (NB: not weakened) by not focusing on a specific god any more. But it does not make it immune to the false dichotomy assault. All we need to do is imagine a god that does not demand belief as a criterion for salvation. As if! Roll Eyes

Quote
True Scottsman? (Making it a third fallacy)

Tih bih 'onest, I kinno' say, lahdee. But I suspect it has something to do with an incorrect premise: Pascal's assumes that one can "decide" to believe or "not to believe" in the same way that one can decide to bet red or black on a roulette wheel. It's probably not that simple in reality.

Rigil

Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3094



« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2012, 16:30:28 PM »

Quote
True Scottsman? (Making it a third fallacy)

Tih bih 'onest, I kinno' say, lahdee. But I suspect it has something to do with an incorrect premise: Pascal's assumes that one can "decide" to believe or "not to believe" in the same way that one can decide to bet red or black on a roulette wheel. It's probably not that simple in reality.

This is why I say it's the true scottsman fallacy. Lets say I do not truly believe (in which I have no choice, as you point out), but to hedge my bets as Pascal would have me do, I espouse to believe in god just to be safe. This is the entire point of the wager, no? To say that given my non-belief, I should pick belief anyway because it's a safer bet.

Both God and Pascal could contend that I didn't truly believe (I wasn't a true scottsman) and it is justified that I go to hell.

In this case Pascal's wager doesn't offer any sort of solution. It has zero bearing on the outcome, even if a non-believer takes up the wager they will still lose. The only way the non-believer could be saved would be to truly convince them of god's existence, but that is in a realm far outside the bounds of the wager, and moreover would make the wager redundant.
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2012, 22:27:52 PM »

This website lists six fallacies associated with Pascal's Wager, all of which are in my opinion quite valid.  Conceptually the wager uses a punishment vs. reward argument, i.e. considering fear but not probability.  I regard that as the primary fallacy, with the others tangential.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
GoogleTagged: google skeptic com


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.632 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 08, 2019, 07:16:31 AM
Privacy Policy