Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So you can see where the application of the abbreviation (in this case, a number) is/can be highly critical in determining whether the formula actually is representative of the situation being described.
Nobody was arguing otherwise.
In fact I said that that was what you were arguing in an earlier post.
And I will say what I said then, You're missing the point.
To say that an argument is logically unsound is independent of how it's applied.
Take the argument:
All
CATS have
FOUR LEGS
My
DOG has
FOUR LEGS
Therefore My
DOG is a
CAT
This form of argument is logically unsound, it doesn't matter what objects are put
into the argument it will never work.
We can generalise this argument to:
All objects in set A are contained in set B
Set C is in set B
Therefore set C and Set A are equal
Or
All A are in B
All C are in B
Thus All C are A.
It doesn't matter what we put in for A, B, and C. this argument will never be sound.
However, the conclusion can still be true, because there is nothing in this argument that means
in general that All C can't be A.
But this argument doesn't prove it, it's unsound.
Pascals Wager is logically unsound. We can analyse the form of the argument and determine it doesn't
comply with the laws of logic and is thus unsound.
And we can do this outside of any context for the argument, and without regard to it's intention or the
truth of the conclusion.
And it doesn't matter who you are, if you understand the rules of logic then you can agree that
the argument is unsound.
Logic is (exactly) like the rules of mathematics (in fact it's a subset of mathematics).
It's immutable, and devoid of bias and prejudice.
An argument that is logically sound today will be so tomorrow, and so on into infinity.