It is always wrong to give weight to hypotheses beyond that justified by the evidence and the length penality (and your prior, but Pascal attempts to show what you should do irrespective of prior).

Are you saying, here, that it is wrong to factor in the utility of the hypothesis when giving weight to the hypothesis?

his reasoning about possible infinite utility is compounded by the fact that you can construct contradictory advice that is equally well-grounded.

If he didn't consider all the cases, his particular application of the argument was bad, not the argument itself, right?

I downvoted you not just for being wrong, but for having made such a bold statement about PW without (it seems) having read the material about it on LW. I also think that such over-reaching trivializes the contribution of writers on the topic and so comes off as inflammatory.

I have read the material, but I disagreed with it, and it's often not clear -- especially when the posts are old -- how I can jump in and chime in that I don't agree. Often it's just the subtext I disagree with, so I wait for someone to make it more explicit (or at least more immediate) and then I bring it up.

Thanks for your explanation about the down-voting.