Talk:Loki's wager

Example?
It would be good to add an example here. Most frequently I'd see this kind of argument being made in theological discussions, i.e. over whether God exists, which would be sidetracked into endless debate over the nature of God (e.g. can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it) which would result in never actually addressing the real question. Perhaps the most famous recent example would be Bill Clinton's quibble over "what the meaning of is is" which turns a simple question into some esoteric debate over the nature of existence. It might be nice to come up with an example that is theologically and politically neutral, but I don't think the anon's example quite captured the real meaning of the wager. -- Kendrick7talk 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In Shakespeare
This kind of reasoning was used in The Merchant of Venice, where Shylock was permitted to take a pound of flesh but not entitled to injure Antonio in the process of doing so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.117.67 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Foolish dwarves...
Interesting that some clever dwarf didn't offer to just take the top half of Loki's head, so that there would be no possibility of taking any of the neck. Seems that would have had the desired result. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They ended up sewing his mouth up, instead. The loss of his mouth (and as he fixed it up, his beauty) was viewed as sufficient punishment. Axel Löfving (talk)
 * That's the other side of it, of course. Loki wagered his (entire) head, not merely a part of his head. -- Kendrick7talk 06:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe Link
While "Never Bet the Devil Your Head" is among my favorite short stories, it isn't a good example of a Loki's Wager fallacy; it just shares a loose similarity in plot to the myth the logical fallacy is based on (making a bet where one's head is at stake.) I'm removing it right away so nobody sees it and gets confused as to the nature of a Loki's Wager fallacy. Smw543 (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

References?
I could not find any references to this subject. I mean there are sources for Loki's Wager, but I cannot find any in reference to the use as term for a logical fallacy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This remains unconfirmed as of September, 2009, and seems widely cited. If anyone has an actual source listing this as a fallacy, it would be greatly appreciated. Mephistopheles (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the more circular references I find to Wikipedia mirrors and forks, or to skeptic's blogs and such. Unless sources are forthcoming within a reasonable period of time, this article is heading to AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A reference has since been found. DS (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not for this being a recognized logical fallacy Mephistopheles (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no references in this article that state that the example given is a logical fallacy. User:DragonflySixtyseven claims that a reference has been found, and yet I do not see it within the article. This was almost a year ago. Any objections to me listing this under AfD? -- Aseld  talk  08:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But it is a logical fallacy. My set theory knowledge is really really rusty, but it's confusing an induction like this:
 * 1 if (A subset B) then X
 * 2 if (A !subset B) then Y
 * 3 B union C != NULL
 * 4 B union D != NULL
 * 5 C union D == NULL
 * 6 therefore !B
 * 7 therefore Y


 * which is correct, with something like this
 * 1 if (A subset B) then X
 * 2 if (A !subset B) then Y
 * 3 B union C != NULL
 * 4 B union D != NULL
 * 5 C != D
 * 6 therefore !B <--- wrong
 * 7 therefore Y


 * It's a common enough error, but I long since threw away my college textbook which named the fallacy as such. -- Kendrick7talk 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not that's true is irrelevant, since "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", and a source would be the verification. So as it stands, it's not verified that this counts as a logical fallacy.Mephistopheles (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As a Logical Fallacy
I've deleted the unverified assertion that this qualifies as a known logical fallacy. Until a source is found to confirm that, there's no reason to present it as such. Mephistopheles (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If no references are found, this article should be deleted. It is only an article because of the logical fallacy concept. –Holt (T•C) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The result of the discussion
In the myth it was decided that Loki was correct and that his head couldn't be removed (none of them mentioned anything obvious that could be done, such as stabbing out his eyes, cutting out his tongue or any of the other fun Norse mythology is famed for) and the dwarves settled for sewing his mouth shut.

I edited the page to reflect this, removing the part "it can be supposed they are discussing the matter to this day" and neglecting to include the conclusion of the myth (that his lips were sewn together) on the basis that it's irrelevant to the logical fallacy being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.229.251 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A Simplification
I think I've found a simpler way of explaining this fallacy and how it is a fallacy:


 * Person A: I allow that you may do this
 * Person B: I choose to do this
 * Person A: But doing this involves doing that and I did not say you could do that

If "this" entails "that", then saying "this" is possible is the same as saying "that" is possible - the division between them either does not exist or is irrelevant to the argument. Therefore, when Person A said "I allow that you may do this" it was the same as saying "I allow that you may do this and that". His statement "I did not say you could do that" is a lie. Alternatively, Person A's statement "doing this involves doing that" may be a lie and "this" actually can be done without "that". Either way, Person A is lying about something. --Shai Halud (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No source for the fallacy in over two years
What's needed isn't a simplification to explain the fallacy, what is needed is just a reliable source that describes Loki's Wager as a fallacy. Jossi first requested a source in December 2007. Mephistopheles noted that there still wasn't a source 2 years later. I added a "fact" tag in March 2009 and Mephistopheles removed the section that stated Loki's Wager was a logical fallacy 7 months later, after no one had provided a source. Since then someone re-added it, without providing a source. So, in over 2 years no one has provided a source for Loki's Wager being the name of a fallacy, despite multiple requests on the talk page and despite that assertion being tagged with a "fact" in the article. I personally spent a few hours searching Google Books and Google Scholar in March 2009 and could not find any sources that refer to Loki's Wager as a fallacy. There are tons (literally tons and tons and tons) of references to the mythological story but not one source referring to a fallacy. The closest I got was a mention in one of Heidegger's diaries on Google Books (which isn't on Google Books any more) but which didn't actually mention a fallacy or hint that it was a fallacy. There are mentions of it being a fallacy during internet forum arguments but when I checked they either use Wikipedia as the source or they post date the article on Wikipedia - i.e Wikipedia turns out to be the original research that is creating this myth that Loki's Wager is the name of a fallacy, rather than some reliable source stating it as a fact. More than two years is more than a reasonable time to request a source for something. Unless someone provides a source for the fallacy I'm going to remove it and leave the article as just referring to the myth. Brumski (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's fine, I just think the main article is too vague as to where the fallacy lies in this type of argument as, on the surface, it seems Loki has a valid point. If the article is to be kept there should be a more direct explanation of what makes Loki's Wager an invalid argument. If we can show this fallacy as distinct from other fallacies, I personally think we should still at least consider keeping it as one. Alternatively, if it can be merged with another article, I'd prefer that to simply unlinking the article Of course, that's just what I'd prefer, I have nothing to back it up.--Shai Halud (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This "fallacy" seems closely related to what I have seen called the "line-drawing" fallacy. As an unoriginal illustration, imagine someone asks how many bald men there are in Oklahoma. The question eventually arises of who counts as being "bald." Is a man with five hairs on his head bald? Or is only a man who has zero hairs on his head bald? Imagine that no criterion can be agreed upon or that there is no criterion which seems less arbitrary than all other possible criteria. To conclude from this that there are no bald men in Oklahoma is fallacious--an instance of the line-drawing fallacy. It seems to me that Loki's Wager is not so much a fallacy itself as a story which employs the line-drawing fallacy.99.168.107.226 (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources again
Apparently this article was later edited to once again say that it's a fallacy based on three sources. However one of the sources was a reprint of Wikipedia's "list of fallacies" (clearly stated on p. 319 of Medical Error and Harm: Understanding, Prevention, and Control). Another of the sources, the Toolkit for Thinking, says what this article says nearly verbatim. Who is copying whom? The third source, Concise Handbook of Literary and Rhetorical Terms, seems fine apart from providing only a brief dictionary definition.

The concept described here might be better known as the Socratic fallacy (related to the Socratic paradox), that something that cannot be defined cannot be known. (Example: Disputing an argument that claims robots are not alive by requiring the arguer to rigorously define "alive". ) This term was coined by Peter Geach in 1966 and has many reliable sources discussing it. —Mrwojo (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)