Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Doctor Stochastic
I like this expression for the fallacy [of retrospective astonishment]. It has been termed the inverse gambler's fallacy

Your link doesn't work for me, but I searched on the phrase to see what it was all about. It's very close to the fallacy I'm talking about. But I don't think it's exactly the same thing. It's about seeing a double-six roll of the dice and assuming that there must have been many previous rolls in order for such an "improbable" combo to appear. "My" fallacy, on the other hand, results in a conclusion that the improbable result was guided, or intended, even if it's only a single roll of the dice.

Still, I'd never heard of the inverse gambler's fallacy before, and I appreciate the info. A friend of mine who teaches philosophy says it's not all that unusual for a "new" fallacy to observed and named, and he likes "my" fallacy. He agrees that applying a name to a fallacy makes it easier to spot it, and to criticize it.

811 posted on 12/01/2003 7:43:21 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Hic amor, haec patria est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry
The term "Retrospective Astonishment" (perhaps someone could translate this into Latin?) does capture the point. I'll endorse your term with both hands.
812 posted on 12/01/2003 7:47:49 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson