The difference between trying to determine events statistically and performing an empirical experiment is very important for understanding why people believe in

The difference between trying to determine events statistically and performing an empirical experiment is very important for understanding why people believe in this fallacy. If you are physically observing a coin land heads up ten times in a row, you might expect that the mechanism for flipping the coin is so regular that it is repeating the same non-relativistic physical interaction every time. The thought experiment fundamentally relies on people reconstructing the physical experiment in there head. If you instead described a physical experiment where the randomness was more prevalent (and the fairness of the coin was demonstrated explicitly), I think fewer people would believe the fallacy.