Gambler's Fallacy / The Monte Carlo Fallacy / The Doctrine The Maturity of Chances / Hot Hand Fallacy

The gambler's fallacy is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

Gambler's Fallacy / The Monte Carlo Fallacy / The Doctrine The Maturity of Chances / Hot Hand Fallacy occurs when the odds of a truly random event happening are thought to increase or decrease over time and events.

Examples of the Gambler's Fallacy / The Monte Carlo Fallacy / The Doctrine The Maturity of Chances / Hot Hand Fallacy

George Wald writing on The Origin of Life in Scientific American August, 1954, p. 48: “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles."

It is interesting to note that the Atheist website, talkorigins.org labels the use of this quote, or any other quote not favorable to Atheist dogma, to be quote mining. Apparently talkorigin's staff writers don't know what quote mining is. Quoting someone is not quote mining. Quote mining is quoting out of context to create a false impression. However, this is exactly the argument of George Wald. It really doesn't matter, though. It appears here to give a classic example of the gambler's fallacy.