common sense and things that make sense

[paragaster]

I have read somewhere that logic is not used in many places. When things make sense we claim them to be logical deductions(and we flatter ourselves for been like a Vulcan. Oh God. Please. A Spock needs to tell us we are still newbies.).

My question is : Is there a difference between common sense and sense that appeals us?

I think or rather expect to have put the question correctly.

[dimreepr]

My question is : Is there a difference between common sense and sense that appeals us?

 

 

Yes, common sense tells us to avoid a destructive sensation that sometimes appeal.

[swansont]

Why is this in suggestions, comments and support? Common sense says it should be somewhere else.

[paragaster]

 

 

Yes, common sense tells us to avoid a destructive sensation that sometimes appeal.

 

By sense that appeals I meant "thoughts that make sense". People say "You make sense". Now does that mean I have common sense?

[Acme]

Common sense, while often credited with being logical, lacks rigor. One person's common sense is another's stupidity. There's a sucker born every minute. ~Unattested

[Phi for All]

 

By sense that appeals I meant "thoughts that make sense". People say "You make sense". Now does that mean I have common sense?

 

There are behaviors that are labeled common sense that may actually be universal. Don't spit into the wind. Watch where you're going. Don't stare at the sun.

 

Most people use the term common sense as a seal of approval ("Well, that's just common sense!") for ideas or actions that parallel things they'd do themselves. These are mostly subjective assessments, and aren't necessarily common at all.

 

Common sense is supposed to be accessible by all (but isn't), but things that make sense have to be reasoned out, and that takes critical thinking skills. Those aren't common at all.

[EdEarl]

Common sense sometimes means "agrees with my belief system," which may be either rational or irrational.

[imatfaal]

Common sense sometimes means "agrees with my belief system," which may be either rational or irrational.

 

Exactly - it was argued in the courts and chanceries of Europe not that long ago that "common sense" dictated that the native peoples of the Americas, Asia, and Africa had no legitimate right to life, the land they had lived on for countless generations, nor the right of self-determination. It was also "common sense" that women could not hold property, make contracts, nor study academic subjects.

 

To an extent, science is the art of distinguishing between common sense and that which is actually true to nature.

[CharonY]

 

Exactly - it was argued in the courts and chanceries of Europe not that long ago that "common sense" dictated that the native peoples of the Americas, Asia, and Africa had no legitimate right to life, the land they had lived on for countless generations, nor the right of self-determination. It was also "common sense" that women could not hold property, make contracts, nor study academic subjects.

 

To an extent, science is the art of distinguishing between common sense and that which is actually true to nature.

 

I would add that this is the hallmark and ambition of modern natural sciences. After, some of the things you mentioned were justified by scientific racism which, in itself, was born from enlightenment school of thought.

[imatfaal]

 

I would add that this is the hallmark and ambition of modern natural sciences. After, some of the things you mentioned were justified by scientific racism which, in itself, was born from enlightenment school of thought.

 

I do worry that there still exist axiomata which we do not challenge as we have not / can not recognize that they are just a piece of societal accepted wisdom. The further from the purely abstract that the science gets ( I dislike the terms hard and soft science - and think in terms of the xkcd scale ) the more likely and more insidious this seems to become

[CharonY]

That is certainly true. I would extend that even further. Even aspects that seem to conform to empirical evidence have to be scrutinized. After all phrenology was assumed to be a hard science. And in modern terms, spurious correlations are sometimes heavily extrapolated.
And sometimes it appears that our appetite for "hard" sciences and categories may lead us astray. Take for example the simple statistic that black African-Americans have a higher incidence of cardiovascular and immune issues. So from there it is easy to assume that there are biological differences that may explain this phenomenon. One could (and to some degree some have) develop a whole research and medical program based on genetic differences between white and black populations to improve health outcome.

Yet research from epidemiologists found that strangely, this effect is mostly found in black people from low socioeconomic backgrounds AND who show strong indicators of long-term aspirations (such as believing in hard work for success, having strong indicators of self -control etc.) and who generally reach better socioeconomic status later in life. In white populations and affluent black populations this effect is absent.

Molecular studies indicate a strong association with stress-related phenotypes indicating that for poor black people, but not for poor white, there is added stress when they strive to better their position, leading to health issues later in life. Thus in this case looking at "soft" parameters (i.e. of psychological nature) has the potential to better explain an outcome than merely molecular or health outcome studies. And taken in context of society, this provides a quite different outlook on population-wide differences in health outcomes.

[paragaster]

It is argued that "common sense" type of decisions are taken in the field of commerce(business decisions by street smart guys). Those who pursue a science career are the ones pursuing new ideas and research. Now tell me : I decided to buy a mobile online(discount and all). My decision does make sense, but someone would claim I used common sense.

How do you know? Is it process of decision that tell them apart?

[dimreepr]

It is argued that "common sense" type of decisions are taken in the field of commerce(business decisions by street smart guys). Those who pursue a science career are the ones pursuing new ideas and research. Now tell me : I decided to buy a mobile online(discount and all). My decision does make sense, but someone would claim I used common sense.

How do you know? Is it process of decision that tell them apart?

 

The problem is the initial question is not well defined, when taken literally common sense is a sense we all (most) share, like sight or hunger.

 

In the above context then common sense becomes common knowledge (for adults), like sticking your hand in a fire is going to hurt, any knowledge that has a cultural aspect is only common to some, not all, and so it ceases to be common knowledge.

[Phi for All]

I do worry that there still exist axiomata which we do not challenge as we have not / can not recognize that they are just a piece of societal accepted wisdom. The further from the purely abstract that the science gets ( I dislike the terms hard and soft science - and think in terms of the xkcd scale ) the more likely and more insidious this seems to become

 

I'm uneasy about the concept of "common sense" in the same way I dislike the "I'm a skeptic" concept. Both make the assumption that this is the right thing to do / the right way to be whenever someone decides to use them in judgement.

 

Common sense seems to beg the question that this is something everyone should know. Skepticism is a hallmark of science, but some folks think it makes sense to doubt everything, even when the evidence in support of a particular explanation is overwhelming.

[imatfaal]

 

I'm uneasy about the concept of "common sense" in the same way I dislike the "I'm a skeptic" concept. Both make the assumption that this is the right thing to do / the right way to be whenever someone decides to use them in judgement.

 

Common sense seems to beg the question that this is something everyone should know. Skepticism is a hallmark of science, but some folks think it makes sense to doubt everything, even when the evidence in support of a particular explanation is overwhelming.

 

Some seem to go as far as to think that scepticism is holding an unpopular belief! "I am a climate sceptic" most commonly translates to "I hold unsupportable, deeply objectionable, and selfish views which I am too arrogant to accept might have been fed to me by the profiteers of the fossil-fuel economy".

[Phi for All]

 

Some seem to go as far as to think that scepticism is holding an unpopular belief!

 

Exactly, and when put that way, the argument seems to gain unwarranted support. It's fairly noble to stand against your detractors while holding an unpopular belief. Just like always siding with the underdog seems noble, until you put it in context. North Korea threatening the rest of the world with nuclear capabilities to protect its national suppression of basic human rights is a good example.

[paragaster]

 

The problem is the initial question is not well defined, when taken literally common sense is a sense we all (most) share, like sight or hunger.

 

 

Me too used to think along those lines.

[Itoero]

*bump*

 

Something that makes a lot of sense for you does not necessary makes any sense for other people.

It depends on your knowledge/imagination concerning a certain subject.

 

Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things that are shared by nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without need for debate...

[dimreepr]

*bump*

 

Something that makes a lot of sense for you does not necessary makes any sense for other people.

It depends on your knowledge/imagination concerning a certain subject.

 

Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things that are shared by nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without need for debate...

 

When literally taken literally, it's solipsistic and makes no sense; it can only really work as a metaphor, for the knowledge an average aged human, of average intelligence with an average education, would acquire within a given culture.

Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things that are shared by nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without need for debate...

 

That's an axiom.

Edited May 11, 2017 by dimreepr

[studiot]

We used to have two phrases

 

Common sense and Engineering commonsense.

 

and

 

Economics and Engineering economics.

 

Both of these suffer from the same difference.

[goldglow]

Common sense and logic don't always agree. I think most of us would know of " Zeno's Paradoxes " and could invent our own version. Here's my version: i start out to walk to work in the morning and common sense says that, if i keep on walking , i will eventually get to my place of work. " Not so ! ", Zeno would say. " First you have to walk half the distance, then you have to walk half the remaining distance, then you have to walk half the distance after that, and so on and so on. Even if you took an infinite number of steps you will never get to work ! ". Logical but nonsense.

[dimreepr]

I think most of us would know of " Zeno's Paradoxes " and could invent our own version. .

 

That would depend on:

 

A. A cultural cross-over.

 

B. A, certain, level of education.

 

What were you saying about common sense?

[goldglow]

It depends on the ability to read. I think most of the people in the thread can read.