|
|
| (20 révisions intermédiaires par 2 utilisateurs non affichées) |
| Ligne 1 : |
Ligne 1 : |
| | | | |
| − | <pre>
| + | Le terme '''Nirvana fallacy''' qualifie en anglais un raisonnement fallacieux parce que constitué d'une comparaison entre,d 'une part, des entités réelles ou potentielles, et, d'autre part, d'autres qui ne le sont pas. Cela désigne aussi une propension à considérer qu'une solution parfaite existe. |
| − | 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.
| + | En présentant un [[faux dilemme]] dont une option est de toute évidence avantageuse - tout en étant invraisemblable -, une personne employant ce raisonnement fallacieux peut attaquer une autre idée parce qu'elle est imparfaite. Il ne s'agit selon elle pas de choisir parmi les solutions possibles mais plutôt de le faire en retenant aussi les solutions que l'on ne peut pas mettre en oeuvre mais qui pourraient mener à un meilleur résultat. |
| | | | |
| − | 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".
| + | ==Histoire== |
| | | | |
| − | Contents
| + | Ce raisonnement fallacieux a été nommé ainsi par l'économiste [[Harold Demsetz]] in 1969. |
| | | | |
| − | 1 History
| + | == Raisonnement fallacieux dit de la ''solution parfaite'' == |
| − | 2 Perfect solution fallacy
| |
| − | 2.1 Examples
| |
| − | 3 See also
| |
| − | 4 References
| |
| − | 5 Further reading
| |
| | | | |
| − | History
| + | Le raisonnement fallacieux dit de la ''solution parfaite'' est apparenté à celui du Nirvana. Il repose sur un argument formulé en présupposant qu'une solution parfaite existe, ou qu'il convient de rejeter toute solution qui laisse subsister une partie du problème. C'est un cas de raisonnement en mode ''tout noir ou tout blanc'', par lequel on néglige les riches interactions entre les parties d'un problème ou d'une situation pour le réduire à deux extrêmes. |
| | | | |
| − | 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]
| + | D'ordinaire cela mène à négliger d'évaluer la capacité d'une solution proposée à résoudre tout ou partie du problème, pour la rejeter sans détailler. Cela peut aussi être combiné au raisonnement fallacieux consistant à illustrer d'un cas non résolu par la solution proposée, et présenté comme parfaitement représentatif de l'ensemble du problème.. |
| | | | |
| − | The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969,[2][3] who said:[1]
| + | === Exemples === |
| | | | |
| − | 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.
| + | ;Postulat fallacieux: cette campagne contre l'alcoolisme du conducteur ne fonctionnera pas. Les gens continueront à boire et conduire quoi qu'on fasse. |
| | + | ;Réfutation: cette campagne n'a pour objectif de résoudre le problème, mais de le réduire. |
| | | | |
| − | Perfect solution fallacy
| + | ;Postulat fallacieux: la ceinture de sécurité est une mauvaise idée. Les accidents feront toujours des victimes. |
| − | 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)
| + | ;Réfutation: la ceinture ne rend pas la conduite parfaitement sûre, mais elle réduit les dommages corporels consécutifs à un accident |
| | | | |
| − | 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.
| + | <br> |
| | | | |
| − | 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).
| + | ==Liens externes== |
| | + | * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy |
| | | | |
| − | The fallacy is a type of false dilemma.
| + | <br> |
| − | 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
| + | [[Catégorie:Fallacies]] |
| − | Complete eradication of drunk driving is not the expected outcome. The goal is reduction.
| + | [[Catégorie:English]] |
| − | | + | [[Catégorie:Pratique]] |
| − | Posit (fallacious)
| + | [[Catégorie:Traduction]] |
| − | 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
| |
| − | | |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | <hr>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <hr>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <hr>
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2012}}
| |
| − | 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 ''[[s:fr:La Bégueule|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").{{cn|reason=Please cite a source for these translations.|date=March 2015}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist [[Harold Demsetz]] in 1969,<ref name="Leeson07">{{cite web|url=http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/08/06/peter-t-leeson/anarchy-unbound-or-why-self-governance-works-better-than-you-think/|title=Anarchy unbound, or: why self-governance works better than you think|last=Leeson|first=Peter T.|date=2007-08-06|work=Cato Unbound|publisher=[[Cato Institute]]|accessdate=2009-07-01}}</ref><ref name="Shapiro07">{{cite book|last=Shapiro|first=Daniel|title=Is the welfare state justified?|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|location=New York|year=2007|pages=4|isbn=0-521-86065-2|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ei-1kg2TSwEC&pg=RA1-PA4&lpg=RA1-PA4&dq=nirvana+fallacy#PRA1-PA4,M1}}</ref> who said:<ref name=nemsetz>H. Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint", ''Journal of Law and Economics'' 12 (April 1969): 1, quoted in {{cite book |title=Competition and Entrepreneurship |last=Kirzner |first=Israel M. |isbn=0-226-43776-0 |year=1978|page=231}}</ref><br>
| |
| − | {{quote|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 ==
| |
| − | {{Unreferenced section|date=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 belt]]s 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 (fallacy)|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 ==
| |
| − | {{reflist}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Further reading ==
| |
| − | *{{cite book |title= Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking|last1= Browne|first1= M Neil|last2= Keeley|first2= Stuart M|year= 2004|edition= 7th.|publisher=[[Pearson Prentice Hall]]|location= Upper Saddle River, NJ|isbn= 978-0-13-182993-0|oclc= 50813342}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Informal Fallacy}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{DEFAULTSORT:Nirvana Fallacy}}
| |
| − | [[Category:Logical fallacies]] | |
D'ordinaire cela mène à négliger d'évaluer la capacité d'une solution proposée à résoudre tout ou partie du problème, pour la rejeter sans détailler. Cela peut aussi être combiné au raisonnement fallacieux consistant à illustrer d'un cas non résolu par la solution proposée, et présenté comme parfaitement représentatif de l'ensemble du problème..
