Nirvana fallacy

The nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. 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.

Example: "If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traffic whatsoever."

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. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.

History

The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969, who said:

“

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.

”

A related quotation from Voltaire is:

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien

often translated as:

The perfect is the enemy of the good

though it is better rendered as:

Leave well alone or Leave well enough alone

from "La Bégueule" (1772).

Perfect solution fallacy

The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. This is a classic 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 in vague terms only. 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 wrecks.

Rebuttal

While seat belts could never save 100% of people involved in car accidents, the number of lives that would be saved is enough to far outweigh any negative consequences of wearing a seat belt.

See also

• Wishful thinking
• Nirvana

Buddhist interpretations

• Dukkha, a Buddhist notion of unease
• Wabi-sabi, a Japanese aesthetic of imperfection

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 9780131829930. OCLC 50813342.