Construct · 1 fields · 1 citations

Pascal's wager: a standalone construct

One name. One construct. A landmark on the map.

● anchor · a single construct Nearest construct by meaning·not indexed
Pascal'swager1 CONSTRUCTPascal's wagerHÁJEK · 2003

A single standalone construct; nearby constructs are located against it in the Collider. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

Philosophy

Belief framed as a bet under uncertainty

Pascal's wager is an argument that frames belief in God as a decision under uncertainty: since reason cannot settle whether God exists, one should weigh the stakes, and because the possible gain from believing is taken to be infinite while the cost is finite, the prudent bet is to believe. Advanced by Pascal, an early architect of probability theory, in his Pensées (1670) and dissected in Hájek's 2003 Waging war on Pascal's wager, it is widely read as the first explicit use of decision-theoretic reasoning (expectations over uncertain states) rather than a proof. The referent is a decision-under-uncertainty argument assessed by its expected-utility structure and its objections, such as the 'many gods' reply and the problem of infinite utilities, and it marks where the mathematics of gambling first crossed into metaphysics.[1]

Unit
The expected value assigned to belief versus unbelief across uncertain states
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Analyzed through its decision matrix of acts and states and the expected-utility objections raised against it

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how Pascal's wager sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this entry

Nearby constructs

sure-thing principle1 fields · 1 citationsanchor · a single constructargument3 fields · 3 citationsjingle · one word, three constructsbelief4 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, four constructs

References

  1. Hájek, A. (2003). Waging war on Pascal's wager. The Philosophical Review, 112(1), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-112-1-27

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct