I know i'm missing something, why is this?

I understand how simple probability situations function but logically, it doesn't make sense.

Scenario: A coin is tossed and there is a 50% of it landing on heads and a 50% chance that it will land on tails. The probability of getting heads/tails twice in a row is 25% (.5 x .5). This 25% probability refers to the situation as a whole (not to any particular toss in the sequence).

So, a coin is tossed and lands on heads. The next toss is either 50% heads or 50% tails. To overall probability of the situation says that tails is then more likely an outcome, because that would satisfy the higher probability (h+t = 50%, h+h = 25%, t+t = 25%) which would of course be more likely. So after the first toss results in heads, the second tossed is supposedly more likely to be tails when you look at the overall situation regardless of the probability of the 2nd toss alone is half and half... According to probability, the first toss and the probability of the 2 tosses combines determines a different probability for the second toss other than the 1/2 and 1/2 probability of heads and tails.

I know i'm missing something, why is this?

I understand how simple probability situations function but logically, it doesn't make sense.

Scenario: A coin is tossed and there is a 50% of it landing on heads and a 50% chance that it will land on tails. The probability of getting heads/tails twice in a row is 25% (.5 x .5). This 25% probability refers to the situation as a whole (not to any particular toss in the sequence).

So, a coin is tossed and lands on heads. The next toss is either 50% heads or 50% tails. To overall probability of the situation says that tails is then more likely an outcome, because that would satisfy the higher probability (h+t = 50%, h+h = 25%, t+t = 25%) which would of course be more likely. So after the first toss results in heads, the second tossed is supposedly more likely to be tails when you look at the overall situation regardless of the probability of the 2nd toss alone is half and half... According to probability, the first toss and the probability of the 2 tosses combines determines a different probability for the second toss other than the 1/2 and 1/2 probability of heads and tails.

I know i'm missing something, why is this?

The probability of the second coin does not change. Indeed you're flirting with the Gambler's Fallacy.

Yes, you are missing something. You are committing the notorious Gambler's fallacy.

Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everyone is right, the odds change once the sequence of occurrences before it have been given.

Probability is a strange concept, though. On the surface it is very logical, but many times in the real world things don't play out the way the odds say they should. If you have pocket aces and someone else has pocket 2s, the 2s can still win if they hit 3 of a kind. What is the driving force that determines whether or not an event will follow the odds?

I understand how simple probability situations function but logically, it doesn't make sense.

Scenario: A coin is tossed and there is a 50% of it landing on heads and a 50% chance that it will land on tails. The probability of getting heads/tails twice in a row is 25% (.5 x .5). This 25% probability refers to the situation as a whole (not to any particular toss in the sequence).

So, a coin is tossed and lands on heads. The next toss is either 50% heads or 50% tails. To overall probability of the situation says that tails is then more likely an outcome, because that would satisfy the higher probability (h+t = 50%, h+h = 25%, t+t = 25%) which would of course be more likely. So after the first toss results in heads, the second tossed is supposedly more likely to be tails when you look at the overall situation regardless of the probability of the 2nd toss alone is half and half... According to probability, the first toss and the probability of the 2 tosses combines determines a different probability for the second toss other than the 1/2 and 1/2 probability of heads and tails.

I know i'm missing something, why is this?

The problem with using it to determine a debate, it can be abused. Science is very good at abusing its laws on probability, if it does not know it will say, in all probability. Science should not, can not be so flippant. If it cant pick a winner, it should not determine scientific facts by these vague assumptions.

The outcome of tossing a coind should be random.

Random = unpredicable (but still adhereing certain algorithms)

I think you are pointing at an important example. The time factor is key. Ifd we toss an ideal (50/50) coin many times, it's general probability will conform to this 50/50, the moreso the more we toss it?

But I would rather bet on a single coin toss than guess what a single role of a six-sided die would be.

The outcome of tossing a coind should be random.

Random = unpredicable (but still adhereing certain algorithms)

It is only unpredictable to some degree. Some people made a machine, some years back, to determine where a seemingly unpredictable roulette would land and they used that in Vegas for huge profit.