It's the only idea though. We don't know how to make reliable systems, other than by cobbling together a lot of unreliable ones and hoping the emergent behaviour is more reliable than that of the parts.
We do this all the time with things like ECC and retransmissions and packet recovery. This intrinsically is not bad at all, the question is: what abstraction does this expose to the higher layer.
With TCP the abstraction we expect is "pretty robust but has tail latencies, do not use for automotive networks or avionics" and that works out well. The right question IMO is always "what kind of tail behaviors does this expose, and are the consumers of the abstraction prepared for them".
But the unreliability of "the network" compared to "my SATA port" is a whole different ballgame. Filesystems are designed for the latter, and when software uses filesystems it generally expects a reliability guarantee that "the network" can't really provide. Especially on mobile internet, wifi, etc... And that's not even getting into places where NFS just can't do things that local filesystems can do (has anyone figured out how to make inotify/fsevents work?) and all the software that subtly breaks because of it.
No, there's math to calculate that without having to rely on hope.