History Main / PerfectSolutionFallacy

* People who attempt to scare people into abstaining from sex often use this fallacy, with the argument that since condoms don't prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] ''100% of the time'', they are useless; never mind that they do so over 98% of the time. The "perfect" solution of "abstinence" is also BegginTheQuestion, since what is actually being advocated is ''abstinence-only education''. 60% of people who have such education will go on to have casual sex anyway, and will 30% less likely to use any form of contraception; the "perfect" solution is statistically massively inferior to the imperfect one.

* People who attempt to scare people into abstaining from sex often use this fallacy, with the argument that since condoms don't prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] ''100% of the time'', they are useless; never mind that they do so over 98% of the time. The "perfect" solution of "abstinence" is also a fallacy, since what is actually being advocated is ''abstinence-only education''. 60% of people who have such education will go on to have casual sex anyway, and will 30% less likely to use any form of contraception; the "perfect" solution is statistically massively inferior to the imperfect one.

* People who attempt to scare people into abstaining from sex often use this fallacy, with the argument that since condoms don't prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] ''100% of the time'', they are useless; never mind that they do so over 98% of the time.

** The correct way to state the argument is to then point out that Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing unintentional pregnancy and [=STDs=] and then point out that while the odds are low, the consequences when it does happen are still severe enough to consider.
*** 100%? What about the Virgin Mary?
*** You can also catch an STD if from contaminated needles, so it's not 100% there either.

* Amoung people opposed to welfare, it's used thus: "In spite of welfare, there are still poor people, therefore welfare doesn't work."

** Not only that, those who make that claim (as Christians, at least) have failed to grasp the essence of God: that He exists in EVERYTHING, not just the "gaps."

* Among people opposed to welfare, it's used thus: "In spite of welfare, there are still poor people, therefore welfare doesn't work."

*** You can also catch an STD if from contaminated needles, so it's not %100 there either.

*** You can catch an STD if from contaminated needles, so it's not %100 there either.

* The "God of the gaps" argument of theology, as used by creationists to discredit evolution: those things that science is not able to explain must have come from God. Of course, when science does present explanations for things previously unexplained, God is still in the ''remaining'' gaps; this is Moving The Goalposts, of course.

** Not only that, those who make that claim (as Christians, at least) have failed to grasp the essence of God: that He exists in EVERYTHING, not the "gaps."

* Often used to argue against alternatives to fossil fuels, saying that the proposed solution (ie solar panels) won't be enough or work in all locations.

* People who attempt to scare people into abstaining from sex often use this fallacy, with the argument that since condoms don't prevent pregnancy and [=STDs=] ''100% of the time'', they are useless; never mind that they do so over 98% of the time.
** On the other hand, arguing that a 2% chance is equivalent to a 0% chance is taking the fallacy in the opposite direction...

* The ultimate example is rejecting anything you like on the basis that it has been imperfectly proven; for example, rejecting the existence of China on the basis that you have never seen it[[hottip:* :Or if you have seen it, rejecting the certainty that your own memories aren't lying to you, or if you are seeing it right now, rejecting the certainty that what you're seeing reflects some external reality]]. This inevitably results in a form of philosophical masturbation called [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism solipsism]] since it is impossible to prove beyond all ''possible'' doubt anything barring your own consciousness.
** I hope you're not using the word "consciousness" literally, because we dream sometimes when unconcious.

** Although to be fair, with or without this fallacy, the fact that it is cruel to animals ought to be reason enough.
*** Ought it really? War is cruel to humans, but we do it (ostensibly) to prevent a greater tragedy. Crop dusting is cruel to insects, but it improves grain yeild vastly, and so by extension, saves people from dieing of hunger (there were less people around before crop dusting). Yes animal testing is, in an immediate sense, cruel to the actual animals used in the testing; but to state that there is no point of view that can justify this cruelty with its benefeit to humanity, and possibly other animals, is facile.

* The ultimate example is rejecting anything you like on the basis that it has been imperfectly proven; for example, rejecting the existence of China on the basis that you have never seen it. This inevitably results in a form of philosophical masturbation called [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism solipsism]] since it is impossible to prove beyond all ''possible'' doubt anything barring your own consciousness.

* Used often by anti-vaccinationists. Their reasoning: a particular measles vaccine only protects 95% of the time, so they'd rather take their chances with a potentially fatal disease. This reasoning ignores that, due to [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity herd immunity]], 95% of the time is more than enough.