>>13542363Not only is it a fallacy (in the sense that you should not use it in reasoning) but you could argue that science is the acceptance of its opposite (in the sense that you can use the opposite of the gambler's fallacy in reasoning).
For example, let's say you flip a coin 10 times in a row and it lands heads all 10 times.
- The gambler's fallacy will suggest that next flip is "due" to be tails, that it will be more likely to be tails.
- A simple mathematical model assuming that the coin is fair will suggest that the next flip is as likely to be heads than tails, regardless of previous flips.
- Based on the empirical evidence observed, science will suggest that the coin is not fair and is biased towards head. So the next flip is more likely to be heads.
The only case where the gambler's fallacy is not 100% a fallacy is if you play a video game with an RNG that was designed to be uniform.
For example, if the RNG repeats itself every 100 flips and that in that sequence of 100 flips you know that there are exactly 50 heads and 50 tails, after seeing 40 heads in a row, you actually know that there is a 50 over 60 chance of the next flip being tails.
But in practice, the RNG "loop" is too big to make a significant difference.
