The inverse gambler's fallacy, named by philosopher Ian Hacking, is a formal fallacy of Bayesian inference which is an inverse of the better known gambler's fallacy. It is the fallacy of concluding, on the basis of an unlikely outcome of a random process, that the process is likely to have occurred many times before. For example, if one observes a pair of fair dice being rolled and turning up double sixes, it is wrong to suppose that this lends any support to the hypothesis that the dice have been rolled many times before. We can see this from the Bayesian update rule: letting U denote the unlikely outcome of the random process and M the proposition that the process has occurred many times before, we have
and since P(U|M) = P(U) (the outcome of the process is unaffected by previous occurrences), it follows that P(M|U) = P(M); that is, our confidence in M should be unchanged when we learn U.
Read more about Inverse Gambler's Fallacy: Real-world Examples
Famous quotes containing the words inverse, gambler and/or fallacy:
“The quality of moral behaviour varies in inverse ratio to the number of human beings involved.”
—Aldous Huxley (18941963)
“I have a notion that gamblers are as happy as most people, being always excited; women, wine, fame, the table, even ambition, sate now & then, but every turn of the card & cast of the dice keeps the gambler alivebesides one can game ten times longer than one can do any thing else.”
—George Gordon Noel Byron (17881824)
“Im not afraid of facts, I welcome facts but a congeries of facts is not equivalent to an idea. This is the essential fallacy of the so-called scientific mind. People who mistake facts for ideas are incomplete thinkers; they are gossips.”
—Cynthia Ozick (b. 1928)