• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The problem with common sense...

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
34,014
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
...is that it is all too common.

https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/communicating-science-the-difference-between-science-and-common-sense/

Common sense is a poor master…it’s only criterion is that new ideas look like old ones.

If unchecked, most people intuitively notice or select ideas, beliefs, or facts that fit within what they already assume the world to be like and dismiss the rest. Common sense reasoning has no problem with the idea that the Sun goes around the Earth because it sure looks like it does, doesn’t it? Humans already feel like they are the center of the universe, why not accept a belief that confirms that notion?

I would like to appeal to everyone: Please, please try not to use a little common sense. If only people had a little less common sense, our world could be a much better place.
 
Reading the title, I was going to say that Common Sense is not all that common, but that's an issue with semantics
 
This article neither defines what it means by "common sense" nor tries to.

In that it is utterly worthless.

I define "common sense" as simply the ability to learn from experience.

And in this it has no antagonism towards science.
 
This article neither defines what it means by "common sense" nor tries to.

Neither does anyone who uses the term regularly.

In that it is utterly worthless.

I define "common sense" as simply the ability to learn from experience.

And in this it has no antagonism towards science.

Common sense is simply intuition, the quote from the article posted in the OP hits that nail on the head. Some people are better at it than others, and of course, intuition is generally developed from experience. Those who tend to fall back on it regularly, often informing others that something is just "common sense", are far less likely to back up their intuition with empirical evidence. Because the person appealing to common sense thinks they know something intuitively, they think that everyone else should know it as well, even if what they think they know is incorrect.
 
0de60bf4588adc706781019d2ec02710.jpg
 
This article neither defines what it means by "common sense" nor tries to.

In that it is utterly worthless.

I define "common sense" as simply the ability to learn from experience.
Exactly. And those tribal customs of sacrificing a virgin to bring rain were only using common sense. It rained after sacrificing virgins before so they learned that was the way it works.
And in this it has no antagonism towards science.
Until science finds that the belief based on common sense is wrong then there is antagonism - the science must be in error if it disagrees with common sense.
 
Exactly. And those tribal customs of sacrificing a virgin to bring rain were only using common sense. It rained after sacrificing virgins before so they learned that was the way it works.

I wonder how the rain knows the sacrifice is actually a virgin?
 
Exactly. And those tribal customs of sacrificing a virgin to bring rain were only using common sense. It rained after sacrificing virgins before so they learned that was the way it works.

I wonder how the rain knows the sacrifice is actually a virgin?

Well, it's just common sense. Who else would they be sacrificing?
 
Must read more closely. Must read more closely. Must read more closely....
 
Maybe common sense should evolve to the point where 'common sense' tells us that things may not be as they appear, that surface appearances can be deceptive, that sacrificing a virgin to bring rain may not work just because it seems to the sensible thing to do....that common sense should stick with the tried and true; don't run onto a busy road without looking, don't pour petrol onto the coals to stoke the fire when camping....
 
Maybe common sense should evolve to the point where 'common sense' tells us that things may not be as they appear, that surface appearances can be deceptive, that sacrificing a virgin to bring rain may not work just because it seems to the sensible thing to do....that common sense should stick with the tried and true; don't run onto a busy road without looking, don't pour petrol onto the coals to stoke the fire when camping....

:D

So your suggestion is that common sense should employ the scientific method... observation, modeling, then rigorously testing the model rejecting it and developing a new model to be tested if the first fails?
 
Maybe common sense should evolve to the point where 'common sense' tells us that things may not be as they appear, that surface appearances can be deceptive, that sacrificing a virgin to bring rain may not work just because it seems to the sensible thing to do....that common sense should stick with the tried and true; don't run onto a busy road without looking, don't pour petrol onto the coals to stoke the fire when camping....

:D

So your suggestion is that common sense should employ the scientific method... observation, modeling, then rigorously testing the model rejecting it and developing a new model to be tested if the first fails?

Yep, that would be common sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom