From Abracadabra to Zombies | View All
perfect solution fallacy (nirvana fallacy)
The perfect solution fallacy (aka the nirvana fallacy) is a fallacy of assumption: if an action is not a perfect solution to a problem, it is not worth taking. Stated baldly, the assumption is obviously false. The fallacy is usually stated more subtly, however. For example, arguers against specific vaccines, such as the flu vaccine, or vaccines in general often emphasize the imperfect nature of vaccines as a good reason for not getting vaccinated: vaccines aren't 100% effective or 100% safe. Vaccines are safe and effective; however, they are not 100% safe and effective. It is true that getting vaccinated is not a 100% guarantee against a disease, but it is not valid to infer from that fact that nobody should get vaccinated until every vaccine everywhere prevents anybody anywhere from getting any disease the vaccines are designed to protect us from without harming anyone anywhere.
The perfect solution fallacy is often used by climate-change deniers. Again, they do not baldly state: until a perfect scientific study is done that proves with absolute certainty that global warming is being aggravated by human activities and that we must limit fossil fuel use or there will be grave planetary consequences, we should not take any steps to limit the use of fossil fuels. Stated that way, it would be obvious that the claim is false. No scientific study is perfect and nobody can predict the future with absolute certainty. One of the more common tactics of climate change deniers is to note weaknesses, flaws, or errors in models. No model that tries to predict the future about complex things like climate change or deaths from the flu can be 100% accurate. (Note: the attack on predictive models is often a straw man attack; the arguers ignore all the other scientific evidence and reasoning used to build up the case for taking action regarding climate change or vaccination programs. In the case of climate change, the attack on models itself is suspect.)
The perfect solution fallacy is often behind the rejection of science-based drugs and surgery. Again, nobody says a drug must have no possible adverse side-effects on anybody anywhere before it is safe to take. Stated that way, the claim would make one look foolish. But it does not look foolish to refuse to take a drug by listing the long litany of items that have been recorded as possibly happening after taking the drug in question. Nor does it look foolish to reject science-based medicine on the basis of anecdotes about people who allegedly suffered adverse side-effects from a drug. (I say "allegedly suffered" because often all we know is that the adverse event happened after taking the drug. That fact is not sufficient evidence for establishing a causal connection between the two.)
Some people who oppose government welfare programs cite as their main reason the fact that some people on welfare cheat and scam the system. That's true, but there will never be a perfect welfare program. The fact that we read occasional reports about police officers who beat to death or shoot to death mentally ill people for not obeying orders the victims are probably incapable of following does not mean we shouldn't have any police. There will always be police officers who cheat, abuse those they arrest or have in jail, kill unjustifiably, scam the system, etc, but that is not a sufficient reason for abolishing police departments.
In 1969, economist Harold Demsetz used the expression "nirvana approach" to describe what he considered to be a pervasive approach by politicians dealing with public policy: posing a false dilemma where some ideal is pitted as a realistic choice versus some imperfect "institutional arrangement." The policy makers should be comparing realistic choices among "real institutional arrangements." What are the odds of there ever being a perfect solution to any political, economic, or social problem? It will always be a choice of imperfect solutions. The most reasonable approach would be to consider the major pros and cons of realistic solutions, take action if we must by choosing the solution where the pros outweigh the cons, and let the chips fall where they may but be open to instituting change when appropriate.
See also the hidden persuaders.
Demsetz, Harold, 1969. “Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint,” Journal of Law and Economics, 12, no. 1.
Last updated 26-Jan-2014