Grant Sterling

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'middle ground (MG)'. Like almost all fallacies, MG is prevalent because it closely resembles a non‐fallacious way of reasoning. In many disputes, especially when there is a spectrum of opinions, the truth often lies somewhere in between the most extreme views on either side. The fallacy is committed by people who don't listen to the reasons that have been offered by each side to defend their theories – they simply assume that the truth is in the middle. The fallacy is the result of intellectual laziness. Fortunately, this is an easy fallacy to avoid. Simply keep in mind the fact that merely because someone asserts a theory, especially an extreme theory, this does not by itself provide evidence for any conclusion at all.

This chapter deals with one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'the gambler's fallacy (GF)'. GF is committed in the context of random, unconnected events. When (by chance) a certain outcome occurs very often in one period of time, the fallacious reasoner assumes that the opposite outcome will be more likely to occur in the future to “even out” the results. As with most fallacies, GF is prevalent because it is similar to a kind of good reasoning. This chapter considers a case of flipping coin to understand this concept. GF covers situations where the results are based on chance. In a game of skill, for example, a streak may indicate the superiority of one player or team or it may cause the other players to adjust their strategy to stop the currently successful run.