The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal

by James Franklin

The real source of the disagreement is that Pascal believes there are no experts in morals and that anyone (or at least the saved) can work out his opinions in morals for himself. The modern world has followed Pascal in this—in morals, though not in science; no one would deny that if a noted scientist asserts a scientific opinion, that would be a reason for the layman to believe it, since the scientist can be expected to know the sufficient reasons for the opinion. The casuists’ assumption that the same can be done in morals renders them fossils indeed. We, like Pascal, are shocked even when the casuist is dealing with genuinely disputable cases in which reasoning and experience with similar cases might seem to have some relevance. Pascal has the father say, “Now the authority of a learned and pious man is entitled to very great consideration; because (mark the reason), if the testimony of such a man has great influence in convincing us that such and such an event occurred, say at Rome, for example, why should it not have the same weight in a question of morals?” Pascal’s answer is, “An odd comparison this . . . between the concerns of the world and those of conscience!”120 It marks a sudden break between medieval and modern thought. Before, one supports one’s opinion by adducing the doctors and their reasonings in its support. Afterward, one claims one’s opinion is supported by one’s bare conscience. Which method is likely to lead, in practice, to greater laxity of behavi...