Is this nirvana fallacy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Person 1: Working in fast food restaurants will soon be obsolete and be replaced with robots
Person 2: That may be true, but we still need humans in the kitchen in case the food quality is not good
Person 1: People get food poisoned and get served food that's possibly rotten, all the while only humans are in the kitchens, you think that would solve anything
Comments on Question
Yeah, that is a valid point.
Answers
2As I understand it, person 1 believes robots will entirely replace humans in fast food restaurants. Person 2 counters, saying this is impossible as humans will be needed as a quality-check. Person 1 points out that food-related incidents happen under human supervision anyway, so it's a moot point.
The problem is that this narrow definition of "food quality" that person 1 is responding to doesn't capture everything that person 2 is saying. Perhaps robots can't account properly for human tastes. Perhaps they will malfunction. Maybe they can't replace every aspect of human labour. Concerns about food poisoning aren't the only things robots will need to address.
I'm reluctant to call 'fallacy' as I'd rather the two just explain what they mean in greater detail, although we could say that person 1 has missed the point.
As I understand the nirvana fallacy, it involves comparing and contrasting realistic and ideal solutions in a way that the "real" world solution or situation is found lacking when compared with an "ideal" one, whether Ron to that "ideal" or "perfect" situation actually exists. Therefore, I don't see this exchange as the nirvana fallacy .
The exchange involves some assumptions that I'm not sure are universally accepted: will robots really replace humans in restaurants? are humans really the best form of quality assurance? As well, there are a number of missing quantifiers ... will ALL humans be replaced by robots in ALL fast food restaurants? Which and how many people get poisoned by restaurant food?
If Person 1 is trying to convince person 2 that robots are coming, the two need to come together to share a common understanding of some basic terms like quality of food and the frequency of food poisoning.
I don't see a particularly good argument or presentation of ideas on either side, but I don't see it as the nirvana fallacy
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
The vast majority of people do not get served rotten food or get food poisoning. I fail to see how the presence of robots would help with eliminating food poisoning in restaurants, which would be an example of jumping to conclusions and a non sequitur. In addition, the line of reasoning could be an appeal to extremes as well as appeal to consequences fallacy