Talk:Blaise Pascal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBlaise Pascal is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 19, 2005.
Article milestones
July 25, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 12, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


There are too many images, and it's making this page crowded. I say we remove the stamp image, and develop a caption for the statue image. -- Removed this passage: "Following an accident in 1654 at the Neuilly bridge where the horses plunged over the parapet but the carriage miraculously survived, Pascal abandoned mathematics and physics for philosophy and theology." Source? Pascal's turn toward religion is commonly attributed to his mystical experience of Nov. 23, 1654. Mark K. Jensen 09:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Found a source placing the accident in question 15 days before Pascal's mystical experience. [1] Mark K. Jensen 01:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Article Direction[edit]

When searching for Pascal I was brought to an article about the Pascal physics unit. It seems obvious that the biography of a man should come before an article about a connotation in the mans honor, so I think it should direct here first.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2019[edit]

Request: Pascal had three sibling(s) not two. He had Older sibling and she died when she was child. Her name remains unknown. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). I'm not sure and I'm a little bit skeptical with some sources. More: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Frood (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request 1st Feb 2020[edit]

The sentence "Pascal introduced a primitive form of roulette and the roulette wheel in his search for a perpetual motion machine.[25]" should be removed since the source is not reliable and offers no evidence of its own that this is true. Also, the link is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request October 2020[edit]

"The latter contains Pascal's Wager, a probabilistic argument for God's existence." This sentence is found in the introduction to the page. It would be better to characterize the Wager as a practical argument for the belief in God's existence. Its focus is to persuade the listener to live and accept theism, not demonstrate its theoretical truth. This is obvious since the argument itself proceeds by admitting that God may not exist, which in any case is better not to be supposed, hence its conclusion.

I'm not sure I got my head around your criticism. I grant Pascal is something of a fideist and also that one could elaborate on the Wager and I've yet to do so, but it is definitely based in probability. It and Bayes Theorem are probably the two most famous instances of use of the mathematics of probability in philosophy. It is not a mere piece of rhetoric, but a piece of logic or at least mathematics. The force of the argument is not just practical but numerical; that belief in God is an infinite reward for finite cost. "Practical argument for God's existence" sounds more like Kant's moral argument for God's existence, which he would call based in practical reason. Your point seems to be that it's not an argument for the logical necessity of God, which is true, but then probabilistic in the sense of inductive rather than deductive inference is also correct. Cake (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]