 |
Informazioni sul sito |
 |
|
Questo sito utilizza cookies. Continuando la navigazione acconsenti al loro impiego.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
American Moon |
|
|
Il nuovo documentario
di Massimo Mazzucco
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TUTTI I DVD DI LUOGOCOMUNE IN OFFERTA SPECIALE
ATTENZIONE: Chiunque voglia scrivere su Luogocomune è pregato di leggere prima QUESTO AVVISO (aggiornato 01.11.07)
|
 |
|
 |
|
Naviga in questo forum:
1 Utenti anonimi
| |
|
|
-
| Modalità di visualizzazione |
 Piatti |
 I più nuovi prima |
|
-
 ivan |
|
Re: Progetto Sintesi: la controinformazione in schede | #1 |
|
Sono certo di non sapere
Iscritto il: 22/7/2004
Da Bronx
Messaggi: 11520
|
link source"
Perfect solution fallacy
“The perfect is the enemy of the good.” — Voltaire
The Perfect Solution Fallacy (also known as the ‘Nirvana Fallacy’) is a false dilemma 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. In other words, that a course of action should be rejected because it is not perfect. .
This fallacy 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 usually takes the following logical form:
Premise 1: X is what we have or is being proposed.
Premise 2: Y is the perfect situation.
Conclusion: Therefore, X is not good enough.
Some practical examples of this fallacy are:
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.
This fallacy is often committed by anti-vaccinationists. Their argument is that a particular vaccine only protects 95% of the time, and there is a (very tiny) risk of adverse side effects. So they’d rather take their chances with a potentially fatal disease, which is an example of faulty risk assessment. Their fallacious reasoning also ignores the evidence that if there is herd immunity, 95% of the time is more than enough.
On the other hand, striving for perfection is not the same thing as the Perfect Solution Fallacy. Having a goal of perfection or near perfection, and working towards that goal, is admirable. However, giving up on the goal because perfection is not attained, despite major improvements being attained, is fallacious.
|
|
|
 Non puoi inviare messaggi.
 Puoi vedere le discussioni.
Non puoi rispondere.
Non puoi modificare.
Non puoi cancellare.
Non puoi aggiungere sondaggi.
Non puoi votare.
Non puoi allegare files.
Non puoi inviare messaggi senza approvazione.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Opzioni discussione
Stampa Discussione
