I agree that it is a logical fallacy, because logic has to be 100% correct. But I think Grant is right that depending on how the "game" is set up, there are situations where the Carter catastrophe analysis is correct-- the majority will be correct that the end is relatively near. So the question is still, do we have any additional knowledge that allows us to infer we are not a part of the "majority"? I would say, certainly, there's no need to argue from a standpoint of zero information, which is what the Carter hypothesis does. If anything, there is plenty of empirical evidence that we could be near the end times even if human population had been 10 trillion in the past! (And of course the Carter hypothesis would indicate that any time you have a population of 10 trillion, and it winnows down to 5 billion at some point, those living would conclude that the end times could not be anywhere near. Would that have been a reasonable conclusion for the dinosaurs?)