Nirvana fallacy : Différence entre versions

De WikiUpLib
Aller à : navigation, rechercher
(Page créée avec « {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2012}} The '''nirvana fallacy''' is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternati... »)
 
Ligne 1 : Ligne 1 :
  
 +
 +
Nirvana fallacy
 +
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 +
 +
The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.
 +
 +
By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".
 +
 +
Contents
 +
 +
    1 History
 +
    2 Perfect solution fallacy
 +
        2.1 Examples
 +
    3 See also
 +
    4 References
 +
    5 Further reading
 +
 +
History
 +
 +
In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good").[citation needed]
 +
 +
The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969,[2][3] who said:[1]
 +
 +
    The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.
 +
 +
Perfect solution fallacy
 +
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2015)
 +
 +
The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.
 +
 +
It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).
 +
 +
The fallacy is a type of false dilemma.
 +
Examples
 +
 +
Posit (fallacious)
 +
    These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
 +
 +
    Rebuttal
 +
        Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.
 +
 +
Posit (fallacious)
 +
    Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.
 +
 +
    Rebuttal
 +
        While seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of dying in a car crash.
 +
 +
Posit (fallacious)
 +
    The Umpire Decision Review System (in cricket) is a bad idea. It can't fix all missed calls.
 +
 +
    Rebuttal
 +
        While not all umpiring errors are corrected under the UDRS, it does reduce the number of errors made.
 +
 +
See also
 +
 +
    Appeal to consequences
 +
    Cherry picking
 +
    Choice-supportive bias
 +
    Confirmation bias
 +
    Emotional memory
 +
    Fallacy
 +
    Formal fallacy
 +
    Groupthink
 +
    Magical thinking
 +
    Optimism bias
 +
    Pollyanna principle
 +
    Self-deception
 +
    Self-fulfilling prophecy
 +
    Self-serving bias
 +
    Truthiness
 +
    Valence effect
 +
    Validity
 +
    Wishful thinking
 +
 +
References
 +
 +
    H. Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint", Journal of Law and Economics 12 (April 1969): 1, quoted in Kirzner, Israel M. (1978). Competition and Entrepreneurship. p. 231. ISBN 0-226-43776-0.
 +
    Leeson, Peter T. (2007-08-06). "Anarchy unbound, or: why self-governance works better than you think". Cato Unbound. Cato Institute. Retrieved 2009-07-01.
 +
    Shapiro, Daniel (2007). Is the welfare state justified?. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 4. ISBN 0-521-86065-2.
 +
 +
Further reading
 +
 +
    Browne, M Neil; Keeley, Stuart M (2004). Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking (7th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-182993-0. OCLC 50813342.
 +
 +
[hide]
 +
 +
    v
 +
    t
 +
    e
 +
 +
Informal fallacies
 +
Correlative-based fallacies
 +
 +
    False dilemma (Perfect solution fallacy)
 +
    Denying the correlative
 +
    Suppressed correlative
 +
 +
Fallacies of illicit transference
 +
 +
    Composition
 +
    Division
 +
 +
Deductive fallacies
 +
 +
    Accident
 +
    Converse accident
 +
 +
Inductive fallacies
 +
 +
    Sampling bias (Cherry picking
 +
    McNamara fallacy)
 +
    Base rate fallacy / Conjunction fallacy
 +
    False analogy
 +
    Hasty generalization / Slothful induction
 +
    Misleading vividness
 +
    Overwhelming exception
 +
 +
Questionable cause
 +
 +
    Animistic (Furtive)
 +
    Correlation proves causation (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
 +
    Gambler's (inverse)
 +
    Post hoc
 +
    Regression
 +
    Single cause
 +
    Slippery slope
 +
    Texas sharpshooter
 +
    Third-cause
 +
    Wrong direction
 +
 +
Vagueness / ambiguity
 +
 +
    Accent
 +
    Amphibology
 +
    Continuum fallacy / Sorites paradox
 +
    False precision
 +
    Slippery slope
 +
 +
Equivocation
 +
 +
    Equivocation
 +
    False attribution
 +
    Quoting out of context
 +
    Loki's Wager
 +
    No true Scotsman
 +
    Reification
 +
 +
Question-begging fallacies
 +
 +
    Circular reasoning / Begging the question
 +
    Loaded language (Leading question)
 +
    Compound question / Loaded question
 +
    No true Scotsman
 +
 +
    List-Class article List of fallacies
 +
    Category Other types of fallacy
 +
    Portal Philosophy portal
 +
 +
Categories:
 +
 +
    Logical fallacies
 +
 +
 +
<hr>
 +
 +
<hr>
 +
 +
<hr>
  
  

Version du 28 septembre 2015 à 11:07


Nirvana fallacy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".

Contents 

   1 History
   2 Perfect solution fallacy
       2.1 Examples
   3 See also
   4 References
   5 Further reading

History

In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good").[citation needed]

The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969,[2][3] who said:[1] 

   The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.

Perfect solution fallacy This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2015)

The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.

It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).

The fallacy is a type of false dilemma. Examples

Posit (fallacious) 

   These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.

   Rebuttal
       Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.

Posit (fallacious) 

   Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.

   Rebuttal
       While seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of dying in a car crash.

Posit (fallacious) 

   The Umpire Decision Review System (in cricket) is a bad idea. It can't fix all missed calls.

   Rebuttal
       While not all umpiring errors are corrected under the UDRS, it does reduce the number of errors made.

See also 

   Appeal to consequences
   Cherry picking
   Choice-supportive bias
   Confirmation bias
   Emotional memory
   Fallacy
   Formal fallacy
   Groupthink
   Magical thinking
   Optimism bias
   Pollyanna principle
   Self-deception
   Self-fulfilling prophecy
   Self-serving bias
   Truthiness
   Valence effect
   Validity
   Wishful thinking

References 

   H. Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint", Journal of Law and Economics 12 (April 1969): 1, quoted in Kirzner, Israel M. (1978). Competition and Entrepreneurship. p. 231. ISBN 0-226-43776-0.
   Leeson, Peter T. (2007-08-06). "Anarchy unbound, or: why self-governance works better than you think". Cato Unbound. Cato Institute. Retrieved 2009-07-01.
   Shapiro, Daniel (2007). Is the welfare state justified?. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 4. ISBN 0-521-86065-2.

Further reading 

   Browne, M Neil; Keeley, Stuart M (2004). Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking (7th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-182993-0. OCLC 50813342.

[hide] 

   v
   t
   e

Informal fallacies Correlative-based fallacies 

   False dilemma (Perfect solution fallacy)
   Denying the correlative
   Suppressed correlative

Fallacies of illicit transference 

   Composition
   Division

Deductive fallacies 

   Accident
   Converse accident

Inductive fallacies 

   Sampling bias (Cherry picking
   McNamara fallacy)
   Base rate fallacy / Conjunction fallacy
   False analogy
   Hasty generalization / Slothful induction
   Misleading vividness
   Overwhelming exception

Questionable cause 

   Animistic (Furtive)
   Correlation proves causation (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc)
   Gambler's (inverse)
   Post hoc
   Regression
   Single cause
   Slippery slope
   Texas sharpshooter
   Third-cause
   Wrong direction

Vagueness / ambiguity 

   Accent
   Amphibology
   Continuum fallacy / Sorites paradox
   False precision
   Slippery slope

Equivocation 

   Equivocation
   False attribution
   Quoting out of context
   Loki's Wager
   No true Scotsman
   Reification

Question-begging fallacies 

   Circular reasoning / Begging the question
   Loaded language (Leading question)
   Compound question / Loaded question
   No true Scotsman

   List-Class article List of fallacies
   Category Other types of fallacy
   Portal Philosophy portal

Categories: 

   Logical fallacies



Modèle:Use mdy dates The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.<ref name=nemsetz/> It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".

History

In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good").Modèle:Cn

The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969,<ref name="Leeson07">Modèle:Cite web</ref><ref name="Shapiro07">Modèle:Cite book</ref> who said:<ref name=nemsetz>H. Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint", Journal of Law and Economics 12 (April 1969): 1, quoted in Modèle:Cite book</ref>
Modèle:Quote

Perfect solution fallacy

Modèle:Unreferenced section

The perfect solution fallacy is a related informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is an example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between multiple component elements of a situation or problem, and, as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes.

It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution's failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored (see availability heuristic).

The fallacy is a type of false dilemma.

Examples

Posit (fallacious)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work. People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
Rebuttal
Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.
Posit (fallacious)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car crashes.
Rebuttal
While seat belts cannot make driving 100% safe, they do reduce one's likelihood of dying in a car crash.
Posit (fallacious)
The Umpire Decision Review System (in cricket) is a bad idea. It can't fix all missed calls.
Rebuttal
While not all umpiring errors are corrected under the UDRS, it does reduce the number of errors made.

See also

References

Modèle:Reflist

Further reading

Modèle:Informal Fallacy

Récupérée de « https://uplib.fr/w/index.php?title=Nirvana_fallacy&oldid=11881 »