Editing Gambler's fallacy (section)

==Retrospective gambler's fallacy==
Researchers have examined whether a similar [[bias]] exists for inferences about unknown past events based upon known subsequent events, calling this the "retrospective gambler's fallacy".<ref name= "retrospective">Oppenheimer, D.M., & Monin, B. (2009). The retrospective gambler’s fallacy: Unlikely events, constructing the past, and multiple universes. ''Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4, no. 5,'' pp. 326-334</ref>

An example of a retrospective gambler's fallacy would be to observe multiple successive "heads" on a coin toss and conclude from this that the previously unknown flip was "tails".<ref name= "retrospective" /> Real world examples of retrospective gambler's fallacy have been argued to exist in events such as the origin of the [[Universe]]. In his book ''Universes'', [[John A. Leslie|John Leslie]] argues that "the presence of vastly [[Many-worlds interpretation|many universes]] very different in their characters might be our best explanation for why at least one universe has a life-permitting character".<ref>Leslie, J. (1989). ''Universes''. London: Routledge.</ref> [[Daniel M. Oppenheimer]] and Benoît Monin argue that "In other words, the 'best explanation' for a low-probability event is that it is only one in a multiple of trials, which is the core intuition of the reverse gambler's fallacy."<ref name= "retrospective" /> Philosophical arguments are ongoing about whether such arguments are or are not a fallacy, arguing that the occurrence of our universe says nothing about the existence of other universes or trials of universes.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hacking | first1 = I | year = 1987 | title = The inverse gambler's fallacy: The argument from design. The anthropic principle applied to Wheeler universes | journal = Mind | volume = 96 | issue = 383| pages = 331–340 | doi=10.1093/mind/xcvi.383.331}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = White | first1 = R | year = 2000 | title = Fine-tuning and multiple universes | journal = Noûs | volume = 34 | issue = 2| pages = 260–276 | doi=10.1111/0029-4624.00210}}</ref> Three studies involving Stanford University students tested the existence of a retrospective gamblers' fallacy. All three studies concluded that people have a gamblers' fallacy retrospectively as well as to future events.<ref name= "retrospective" /> The authors of all three studies concluded their findings have significant "[[Methodology|methodological]] implications" but may also have "important theoretical implications" that need investigation and research, saying "[a] thorough understanding of such reasoning processes requires that we not only examine how they influence our predictions of the future, but also our perceptions of the past."<ref name= "retrospective" />