So then it must be a principle of statistics that the sun will always shine, becuase if you measure all those seconds that it has, then it'll probably keep having them(seconds of shine)?
No, it's a principle of statistics that the more times you look up and see that the sun is shining, the more certain you can be that it is actually shining.
In the case of the bag of marbles, the greater your sample size, the greater your confidence that your sample (i.e. the marbles in your hand) is an accurate reflection of your population (i.e. all the marbles).
In a slippery slope, one assumes that an event will inevitable happen from another(the sun will keep on shining becuase it has kept on shining). such is callled fallacy of predicting the future. there is no evidence, so there never will be?
That's not what the slippery slope fallacy is. The slippery slope works like this:
- If event 'A' happens, then event 'B' will inevitably happen (without substantiating why 'B' inevitably follows 'A').
- since event 'B' is undesirable, event 'A' should not be allowed to happen.
The key point of the slippery slope fallacy is that you're using the consequences of 'B' to justify a decision about 'A', when it's not established that 'B' must follow from 'A'. It's not just saying "this thing happens because of that thing".
Appealing to Tradition is saying that it happens traditionally (Sun shines) therefore it is favorable(sun should keep on shining).
No, appeal to tradition would be "we believe that the Sun will go out on January 1, 2012, and we know this is true because our people have believed it for centuries."
The key idea in Appeal to Tradition is that the length of time a belief is held is itself support for that belief. This is not the same thing as having many measurements over a long period of time.
misleading vividness is "event x occurs, therefore event x is likely to occur later."
No, misleading vividness is "Event 'X' very rarely leads to Event 'Y'. Even though this is so rare as to be statistically insignificant, the dramatic nature of 'Y' means that we should take it into account when evaluating 'X'."
Gamblers fallacy is that becuase it happens so much it is less likely to happen next. and the assertion asserted was that because it happens so much it is more likely it will keep happening.
Which is not a fallacy.
Let's step through the
Gambler's Fallacy:
The Gambler's Fallacy is committed when a person assumes that a departure from what occurs on average or in the long term will be corrected in the short term. The form of the fallacy is as follows:
- X has happened.
- X departs from what is expected to occur on average or over the long term.
- Therefore, X will come to an end soon.
Now, let's look at what you've called the "reverse gambler's fallacy:
- X has happened.
- We initially have no average against which we can predict what X should be.
- Therefore, we create a prediction based on multiple observations or measurements of X.
- From this prediction, we assume that X will continue to behave in accordance with past observations.
Like I said, this is not a fallacy.
Also, I should point out that the gambler's fallacy isn't a fallacy under certain conditions. Say you know that there is a red marble in the bag; you either looked in the bag or dropped the red one in there. Every time you remove a blue marble (assuming you don't return it to the bag), you
do increase your chances of drawing the red one the next time.
