I posted a "name that fallacy" a few weeks back: The perfect solution to speeding, not quite, and asked people for their vote as to which fallacy was what. Results, which I concur with, are posted below:
PARENTS will be able to control the speed at which their teenagers drive the family car with a computer chip developed by carmaker Ford.... It announced this week that from 2010, its US Focus models will limit teen drivers to 130 km/h using a computer chip called MyKey.
This is the Perfect Solution Fallacy (the original post title might have been a give away). "…she did not think the devices would save many lives. "If the driver's an idiot and drives like a maniac you cannot control that…" True, but if it reduces accidents and deaths by even 5% (or any arbitrary number), then it could be a part of the solution. It's very rare that one solution is the solution. Most social problems require multiple and mutually reinforcing solutions.
2: Mrs Loizou said restricting the number of passengers P-plate drivers could have was a better idea. "George was not driving, he was just one of three passengers, which makes it too hard, they should have just one passenger which is more important," she said.
Here's another potential solution to add to minimising road deaths: "...restricting the number of passengers P-plate drivers…". But why choose between one and the other: "…could have was a better idea." and
turn it into a False Dilemma?
2 comments:
I think the argument against MyKey is an example of a Perfect Solution fallacy as you present it. But we could simply add a premise or two to make it a valid argument. For example saying: "this law will involve costs of various sorts. The benefits are small and don't outweigh the costs. Thus, it's not worth it," seems valid to me. Whether the principle of generosity should lead us to assume that such implicit assumption is operative is an open question. Public debate is usually quite informal and frequently involve unspoken assumptions which make apparently invalid arguments valid. Admittedly, public debate is also frequently infected with a dizzying array of fallacies too. Doris Loizou herself doesn't seem to commit any fallacy, since she seems to be just responding to the question, "Will it save many lives?" and not to the more contentious question "Is it worth it?"
You make a good point. Especially about the "on the fly" nature of public debate. One can hardly expect people to make completely logical and well supported statements; outlining their unstated premises etc... That's why newspaper articles are a great source for me!
Re: the actual claim as to whether this device would be worth it or not. At the moment all we really have is two competing hypotheses. That it will be "worth it" or "not worth it". One hypothesis may or may not seem more likely to be right on the face of it. Without any data there is no way to make any distinction between the two. What is needed is a pilot study of some sort.
I wrote this elsewhere recently. I think it's pertinent to this example.
To be skeptical requires us to:
1) ask for evidence to support a claim before accepting it as reasonable
2) admit to being uncertain when evidence is lacking and
3) reject a claim as unreasonable when the evidence does not support it.
At the moment I'd say 2 is the clear winner. That being said, you can come up with arguments that might make you think one result is more likely or not.
Essentially, there's no point in rolling these thing out at great cost if we don't even have evidence of their efficacy. But of course, it's unreasonable to dismiss it out of hand for the same reason.
Theo
Post a Comment