Talk:Nirvana fallacy

Archive (Perfect solution fallacy)

no cit, lnk

This page provides absolutely no citations or external links. If it wasn't labeled a philosophy stub, it'd hardly be attached to the rest of Wikipedia at all. 71.198.74.1 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between the Nirvana fallacy and the Perfect solution fallacy? Isn't it the same thing? Gligeti (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw man

Hi folks - I was wondering, isn't this sort of a case of the "straw man fallacy"? I would write that in the article, but I'm not quite sure. --Bmk (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, setting up a straw man involves someone attacking a distortion of a position because the distortion of the position is easier to attack than the position itself. Its a fallacy, however, because an attack on the distortion is not the same as the attack on the position. Frankja79 (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I agree with Gligeti - this is the same as the Perfect solution fallacy, so here's a formal merge proposal. --Bmk (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, assuming that the principal title is Perfect solution fallacy, and "Nirvana fallcy" is a redirect to it. Pointillist (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC) + comment struck out 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support, as Pointillist said above. Scj2315 19:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scj2315 (talk • contribs)
• Support the merge, but I'm not so sure which title should be the page and which the redirect. Perhaps the Perfect Solution Fallacy would be the best for the main page as it has the most concise and descriptive title. Can anyone who deals with this topic regularly comment as to which term is used more often?Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 02:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I originally noticed this article while researching for a paper. The text for my class, "Asking the Right Questions" (8th ed.) by Stuart Keeley, refers to the perfect solution fallacy. I'd heard of it before, but I'd never heard of the Nirvana fallacy until I saw the related articles link on perfect solution. I clicked and found it to be virtually the same fallacy with a different name.

Should we perhaps place a notice on the talk page of perfect solution, to ask for comments about the merge? Maybe there are some editors on that article who can give an expert opinion. Or, how else might we go about getting an expert opinion? At least we have consensus on the concept of merging :) Scj2315 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose While the two are similar, they are not identical, and in my humble (and admittedly non-professional) opinion, should at best reference each other as two sides to similar coins. There is one glaring difference between the two. The Nirvana fallacy rejects a solution because it isn't perfect. The Perfect Solution fallacy, on the other hand, not only rejects a solution because it isn't perfect, but also assumes that there is a perfect solution, and the one provided isn't it. The Nirvana fallacy makes no assumption about a 'perfect solution' existing. Frankja79 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting - I thought Nirvana implied perfection. Anyway, even if there really is the glaring difference you describe, it would still be OK to describe them both on the same page, so long as there are appropriate headings on the page and each redirection points specifically to the relevant heading. This would have the advantage that both interpretations could be presented and contrasted in context. - Pointillist (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks from the original Demsetz quote (which I've now added to the page) that the fallacy does in fact assume an 'ideal' institution might be possible, but that it would have other disadvantages that make it an inappropriate point of comparison. I can see that there might be some important and subtle distinctions here, but I'd still argue that the best place to present them is on one page, not scattered over several pages loosely joined by "See also" links. - Pointillist (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly concede that a loose 'See also' reference is inadequate. Perhaps you're right that they should be presented in one article, especially considering that the differences are so subtle. I find it difficult to imagine someone looking up a fallacy and stumbling across one of the two and saying, 'That's close, but not quite what I was thinking...'. Consider my vote swayed to Support Frankja79 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If the pages are merged, the Perfect Solution fallacy should go under the Nirvana fallacy, since the Nirvana fallacy is the most basic. (At least, that's what I understand from what you're saying.) Anderocketech (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, for all above reasons, but also value opposing reasons and suggest recognising the differences in the merged article please. I suggest almost all text in both articles be retained, as each point helps understanding. And assume merge will produce automatic re-directs. (Side-bar: In view of the time which has passed since apparent agreement above on support, and an appropriate name below, the fact that the merge has not happened yet is perhaps ironic confirmation of Voltaire's quote!) -- Bricaniwi (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support with the following caveat: It seems that in practice, both are used somewhat interchangeably; however, it also seems that there are two distinct, if nuanced, constructs. One argues that the proposal should be rejected purely on the basis that it is imperfect. The argumentative basis for rejection is purely the imperfection and not necessarily that there is believed to be a preferred alternative. The other argues that there is a "perfect" alternative (implied, idealized, or misrepresented as ideal) and the proposal should be rejected because of the theoretically better alternative. Based on the article content, it would seem that "Perfect solution fallacy" encompasses both (based on the initial stated "and/or" definition: 'or' -> a "perfect" alternative may or may not be part of the argumentative premis) whereas "Nirvana fallacy" seems to be the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmengineer (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC) --Rmengineer (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The two are clearly distinct, though related. Although this is not clear in the first sentence of the "Perfect solution fallacy" article, I would argue that a perfect solution fallacy as described in the rest of the article causes or excuses passiveness, based on the (supposed) impossibility of a perfect solution. The fallacy, in my understanding, is that an imperfect solution does not do away with a certain problem altogether and is therefore not worthwhile. However, there is no base for any such connection. (Although I think this is a very real phenomenon, I am clueless as to whether this is a well-defined terminus, see Google results below.) The "Nirvana fallacy" article on the other hand describes the fallacy of assuming the existence of a perfect solution, disregarding any reality checks. I would assume that in contrast to the passiveness caused by the perfect solution fallacy, this could well be cause for action, e.g. in utopian political movements. Knuton (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal - article name

I've just run Google searches for candidate names:

• "nirvana fallacy" had 17500 hits without site filter, 31 at site:ac.uk, 170 at site:edu, 5770 at site:org, and 8 at site:org.uk
• "perfect solution fallacy" had 620 hits without site filter, none at site:ac.uk, 5 at site:edu, 647 at site:org, and 2 at site:org.uk
• "perfectionist fallacy" had 571 hits without site filter, 1 at site:ac.uk, 61 at site:edu, 571 at site:org, and 1 at site:org.uk

It looks as though Nirvana fallacy is the right name after all. Does anyone object or can we go ahead with the merge process now? - Pointillist (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While the raw numbers from my Google searches were quite different from yours, Nirvana still outweighed perfect solution by a factor of 10, though I suspect we're picking up a decent number of hits that are more related to the concept of Nirvana than to the Nirvana fallacy. I personally preferred perfect solution because it requires no knowledge of the concept of Nirvana and avoids any possible entanglement in issues related to that subject. All the same, I think it's time to go for it, and Nirvana solution seems to have the upper hand in Google hits. Scj2315 (talk) 06:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Nirvana fallacy as merged name -- hit numbers seem clear. -- Bricaniwi (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

French Translation

Le mieux does not mean "the better", it means "the best". Le meilleur is the french term for "the better". Could someone please correct accordingly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arisevoice12 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 June 2009

Changed. Be bold and fix errors yourself when you see them. Thanks! --Mrwojo (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Native French speaker here, grand-parent post is untrue. "Mieux" is the comparative form of "bien" ("good"), and it means "better"; "meilleur" can be either the superlative form of "bien", or either the comparative or superlative form of "bon". In any case, "mieux" is a comparative, and will never mean "best", which is a superlative. Fixing article accordingly. 80.200.221.233 (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a native speaker, but that's not true. "Mieux" as an adverb is comparative, but as a noun with a definite article is superlative. That's true of all comparatives in French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:2002:7414:8305:2180:13E8 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, that's not that exact kind of French which you are aware of but sententious phrasing and what is meant is "better". In fact, the overall worth of the sentence is rather disputable when taken outside of its original context(s). Some are making of it "willing to make it better is of lesser worth than willing to make it well, and often, spoils the achievements like as of those last", others prefer to keep it meaning: "what's on top is the enemy of what's below". Voltaire's just an old beast to me. --Askedonty (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a native French speaker here, but still better knowledge of it than my predecessor: Both "mieux" and "meilleur" can be either comparative or superlative, the difference being that "mieux" is the comparative and superlative form of "bien" (=well; what we call adverb) while "meilleur" is the comparative and superlative form of "bon" (=good; what we call adjective). To clear things up in the given case, with the determinate article ("le") it is superlative. More famous is Voltaire's phrase, also taken from Candide, "Tout ira pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes."

Alternative names

Other possible names for this fallacy:

• perfectionist fallacy
• unobtainable perfection fallacy
• unattainable perfection fallacy (haven't seen a RS for this yet)

—Mrwojo (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples?

I agree that Nirvana fallacy seems to be the right name. It's also easy to remember. I've always thought of it as a failure in realistic thinking, "ignoring consequences."

It would be very instructive to add a list of examples where the Nirvana fallacy leads to disastrous public policies: the U.S. Prohibition, the War on Drugs, etc. Monado (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I could suggest a few examples of where UK/EU building regulations create nirvana fallacies, or 'argumentum ad perfectam' situations. There are quite a few older houses round here with a few electrical fittings in somewhat unsafe condition, for example the odd frayed cable or broken socket. Whilst, the rest of the wiring though old-fashioned is in serviceable condition. Problem is, if you call a registered electrician then s/he will likely declare that regulations require the entire house to be rewired and all fittings to be replaced to IEE 17th Edition standards, at enormous cost. (Which AFAICS is true) The consequence is that either the unsafe wiring stays unsafe, or else a cowboy is called-in to replace the unsafe items.

Some years back I had a gasfitter call to do a routine service on a boiler. He demanded that a foot-square hole be knocked in a 3ft thick stone wall to add a ventilator, which new gas regulations apparently required -or so he claimed. Which does make me wonder how many householders DON'T have gas appliances serviced, through fear of this kind of scenario arising.

Some more info on how these situations jack-up costs here: http://www.miketheboilerman.com/newboilercost.htm --Anteaus (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttal of rebuttal

I removed this recent addition because:

1. If we need to improve the example, it should be discussed on the talk page and not commented on in the article.
2. It does not improve the article and instead is likely to confuse readers.
3. The source cited to justify the statement says that safety features do not reduce accidents. The rebuttal statement says seat belts reduce the chances of death in an accident. These are not the same thing.

Jojalozzo 02:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Examle about "Highway 95" is not very good. I propose to remove it or find a better one. pawel-l 83.31.62.13 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The example about masks & COVID should be removed, it is completely anti-scientific

The credibility of Wikipedia is going to go down, if these kinds of fraudulent, unscientific claims are distributed here, especially as "correct" "rebuttals" to "fallacious" claims

The example says currently:

"Posit (fallacious) Wearing a non medical grade mask will not protect me or others from SARS-CoV-2." "Rebuttal While wearing a mask does not provide 100% protection, it does provide some protection.[5][6] Some protection is better than none, especially when the virus is not under control."

This "rebuttal" is a completely unscientific, false claim, and it should be removed. I already removed it, but someone else reinstated it

The best quality studies clearly state, that masks do not work. The absolute best quality evidence we have are rigorous meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials (RCT's), and they clearly show, that masks don't work:

The largest meta-analysis on masks, with over 3000 studies gone through / examined:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/epdf/standard 20 November 2020

"What are the results of the review?" "Medical or surgical masks . . . Compared with wearing no mask, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness (9 studies; 3507 people); and probably makes no difference in how many people have flu confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 3005 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported, but included discomfort."

"Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks . . . wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18."

WHO meta-analysis on RCT's:

https://www.who.int/influenza/publications/public_health_measures/publication/en/

"OVERALL RESULT OF EVIDENCE ON FACE MASKS 1. Ten RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, and there was no evidence that face masks are effective in reducing transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."

"Quality of evidence There is a moderate overall quality of evidence that face masks do not have a substantial effect on transmission of influenza."

A very widely distributed meta-analysis on mask-RCT's that was supposed to be pro-masks, but actually was erroneous, and has RR>1 for masks after corrections: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20166116v2.full.pdf (Larson 2010 had the biggest data error in the meta-analysis, the numbers switched around, number of "no reported symptoms" switched to "reported symptoms")

Ioooi (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Fallacy could be more clearly defined.

I feel like the opening paragraphs should more clearly explain why the line of reasoning is fallacious rather than imply that certain solutions are inherently "idealistic" or "implausible." That raises the obvious objection that dismissing ideas as "idealistic" is often a fallacious appeal to tradition.

The nirvana fallacy is is a fallacy not because some solutions are idealistic by some objective standard, but because the solutions posited by the person committing the fallacy are irrelevant (as in the example of COVID-19 vaccines, which were never intended to eradicate the virus), or because imperfect solutions are dismissed without serious consideration. These points get lost in the loaded language.

I feel like a person would come away knowing how to accuse others of the fallacy, but unable to recognize the fallacy in their own thinking. Logic needs to be clear.

Thoughts? 104.128.175.120 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)