No such thing as Common Sense!

Great Debates
61

Epithemus, firstly your post count is nothing worth bragging about when you post five times in a row. Besides, only 31337 people brag about their post count anyway.

You attack me and call me arrogant for telling you you shouldn’t call people delusional, yet you ignore everything else in my post. Let’s get back on topic, shall we?

Give us your definition of common sense of you want this debate to continue; I’m tired of grappling with strawmen. I’m looking for a concrete definition here, a good solid one liner: “common sense is…” I don’t want two conflicting paragraphs again. You seem to have defined “common sense” as inborn knowledge, and are claiming that it doesn’t exists because “common sense” is really learned. Is that at all correct?

62

For example, suppose I wanted to define “hypocracy.” I could use common wisdom, such as “Do as I say, not as I do.” I could also use an example, such as “Chiding someone for multiple posts, then doing the same thing yourself.”

But seriously, I wanted to respond to a comment you made earlier. No one has exactly the same definition of common sense because common sense is not a term that needs to be defined well in order to be useful. That’s just plain common sense.

However, just because “common sense” does not lend itself ot a defintion as well as, say, “clinical psychology” does not mean that it has no use in society. After all, you don’t know that the hue you see as “green” isn’t “yellow” to other people. That doesn’t stop traffic lights from working, though.

63

I wasn’t bragging about my post count. You made that attribution. You called me a troll in so many words. I was simply stating that I have been on this message board for some time, know the rules, and it is unlikely given my posting history that I am some troll trying to get a rise out of people. Seems to me that you are insecure with YOUR post count.

Also, it was YOU that called me arrogant, not the other way around. The only thing I said was that if you don’t like arrogance, coming to the SDMB is not something you should be doing. Not because you are arrogant, but because there is a lot of arrogance on the SDMB. Just look at the Master- Cecil.

I am claiming common knowlede has too many definitions for it to be useful in any context. When everybody has a different defintion, the term can mean many different things. Take the example of the politian’s plea in this quote from the link I posted:

InquisitiveIdiot poste:

Oh? How is it common sense to suggest that a word that has a loose defintion is anyway useful for society? The less strict a definition, the MORE useless it becomes. I know, my posting skills are a bit jumbled and not structured well, but did you even read any of my other posts?

If a term has a loose defintion and can mean any number of things, it become useless. Well, lets just let Bird mean anything that flies for our example. Bats fly, many incsects fly, some squirrels sort of fly. So that leaves pengquins and ostriches out. They don’t fly. Airplanes fly, so they are birds. My piece of paper CAN fly, so I will call it a bird too. Now, think about how many problems this would cause in communicating things. For something to be useful it absolutely must be defined properly.

With common sense the problem is multiplied by the fact that not many things are common, most of the things we think of being “common sense” is stuff we were taught, or similar to things we were taught and inferences about those things.

With the internet example: The example is a bit flawed because I have no idea of the posters background. Did said poster have experience in windows? Does the poster know what “buttons” do? Does the poster know how to operate a keyboard? How about what Back means? What about the countless other things that assisted him/her in figuring out, like problem solving skills we are ALL taught in elementary school and beyond?

If just figuring out how to utilize existing knowledge to figure out problems that may be similar to problems we have already faced is common sense, it still leaves us with too many variables to be safely defined. How about a PC user that finds himself in front of a MAC for the very first time? Is that not common sense? You know how to operate a computer right? You should have NO problem with this one…

I can give more examples, and more, but it really seems a waste of time given that no one seems to read my posts anyhow. Just skim through it and make a judgement on it based on what they think they saw.

64

Translation: “Heh, you WISH you had as many posts as me, little man!”

Also, most “arrogance” that you seem to have to picked up on here is made in the spirit of humor. Actual arrogance gets you reamed right quick. So let’s just can the attacks, okay? This isn’t the Pit.

Your (clarified) point now seems to be “Common sense is ambiguous, so we can’t trust it, so it’s useless.” Unfortunately, that’s not the way things work in the real world.

When it comes to hard science, ambiguity is a monster that is to be avoided at all times. Defintions are hard, theories are exact, proofs are precise. If we were talking about a concept with as loose a definition as common sense has, then yes, you would have a very valid point. But we’re not in the realm of hard science, this is the real world, where the only accurate rule is that there’s an exception to every rule.

If the world was as amenable to strict definitions as you seem to think it is, expert system AI would have been far more successful than it was. As it is, I have what I think is a good definition, but Sally over there has a different (though similar) one. We can still communicate about what’s “common sense” because our definitions roughly match. And even if someone did have a definition that was too far off, humans are usually willing to change they way they look at things. The world will not end merely because everyone’s definition of an abstract concept does not entirely line up, nor does that make the abstract concept invalid.

“Bird” defined. Please see definition 4. Analogy is one of the primary ways that “common sense” rules are adopted.

And politicians will say anything to get you to vote for them. That’s just common sense.

65

Again, YOUR attribution. Read the context of whence I was refering to somebody being delusional. In CONTEXT of somebody without the education disregarding the theories of Frued, which I used as an example. I said that dismissing things like that in face of overwhelming evidence is delusional. It was NOT an attack. So, where did I attack you? If it exists, you should be able to pin point it right?

I have to leave for work right now unfortunately, but I will get to the rest of your points when I get off (5-6 hours from now).

66

That is true. My clarified point IS that the common usage of the term common sense is not only ambigious, but cannot be trusted because of it’s lack of definate boundries. It is an unecessary term that gets confused and easily misconstrued and thus is useless.

Tell me how things work in the “real” world. This world I apparently have not spent 26 years in. Sure, that is young, and I am a college boy, but this is my first semester ever in college, and before that I have worked in your “real world.” I think I have a pretty good intuitive grasp of how things work. How exactly does the real world not fall under the same necessities as hard science? How does semantics differ from mathmatics? Sure there is more leg room, but there must be an agreed upon definition for an argument to work. That is the sticking point in this debate. Finding a defintion that is somewhat universal.

The bird analogy was perhaps not the most perfect choice, but you really didn’t disprove anything. I doubt anybody would seriously consider slang as hard evidence of a definition. Its, well, it’s slang.

Combined with these points is the fact that in every usage of the term common sense another one can be used. Sound judgement, intuitive, inferance, good upbringing, socially adept, etc ad nauseum and such. Why mulitply entities when they are not necessary. Especially when such mulitplications only cause confusion, and are generally dismissed as being irrelevent.

67

Now I know why I don’t read these boards much anymore. Two whole pages pass by without anyone pointing out that the term common sense was originally coined by Aristotle. Current usage is a misunderstanding of Aristotle’s term, and I agree is without specific meaning.

(That is, there can be knowledge which is common to a particular group, but there is no universal knowledge common to all people.)

Yep, that’s what paranoid logic might tell you, but it’s the exact opposite of what “common sense” will tell most people. But clearly not all, because it isn’t common.

I think this is really the sticking point. When you use common sense to mean “a lowest-common-denominator collection of beliefs, prejudices, practical know-how, unexamined intuitions, and/or guessing ability thought to be possessed in common by nearly all people”, what is meant by nearly all? 90%? 52%? And obviously, when we replace “all people” with “all people living along the Amazon”, it changes which things are “common sense”. If we use the latter group, I would bet most of you reading this have little or no common sense at all. When we leave the group as “all people”, I don’t think any of the examples given yet in this thread pass muster.

68

So you’re saying that conversations such as the following should occur often?

Mandy: How can you not know what beer is? That’s just common sense!
Bob: I’m afraid I cannot correctly construe your term, therefore argument is impossible. I fold to your poorly defined term.
Society: What? Common sense doesn’t have a rigorous definition? Oh no! Surely I am crumbling before your eyes!
Mandy and Bob: AHHH!

When in fact, differences can be handled thusly:

Scientist 1: How can you not know what the ART algorithm is? That’s just common sense!
Scientist 2: No it isn’t. I imagine most people wouldn’t know it. Just ask Bob!
Bob: Yep.
Scientist 1: Heh. Guess you’re right. Anyway, the ART network is…

See? In the first scenario, society crumbles. In the second, all parties resolve their differences within a few seconds, each learning a little more about what common sense is.

Yes, but in the real world, everyone’s definitions need not be identical, only similar enough to get by. Nor do they need to be exact, but merely workable. In the real world, you’re not trying to prove to others that your views are correct, you’re just trying to get along. That’s why there IS a difference between professional environments (including science) and the rest of the world.

Why does common sense need a hard definition then? It’s, well, it’s common sense!

Hey, I didn’t invent the synonym. You want to complain, you go talk to whoever made up english literature. 'Sall their fault, the stupid shakespearean hippies!

tourbot:

I believe that primitive urges like “fire is hot” and “food makes hunger go away” would probably be common to pretty much everyone. Anything more specific, and we may get differences.

I would like to propose amending Aristotle’s original definition to “All people who’s understanding you are familiar with.”

A lumberjack who knows only a close circle of friends would have a very reaching definition of common sense. After all, everyone he knows is from the same town, went to the same high school, and generally knows the same stuff. His tour guide neighbor, who’s used to interacting with asian tourists would have a different idea of what “everyone” knows. Put them in a room together, and the tour guide can quickly educate the lumberjack by regaling him with stories about the things some asians don’t know, like hot dogs, and nachos.

On the whole, though, the definition of “common sense” as “what is obvious to me” is generally pretty workable, and most people seem to have a okay time navigating in this crazy world of ours without any rigorous definition for an abstract concept of shared knowledge that really boils down to just common sense.

69

To stave off the reply that dark voices are telling me is coming, I present three definitions of “common sense.” They’re all just fine to use, as they can all peacefully coexist. Feel free to adopt one, or add one of your own.

  1. “Common sense is an amalgamation of learned rules, analogies, and inferences that one picks up during the course of adjusting to society.”

^ I prefer this one, and by and large feel that it’s the most scientifically accurate, though rather unwieldy.

  1. “Commons sense is the shared knowedge of people who’s understanding you are familiar with.”

^ Nice rule, I have no objections to it. Good for settling on a definition.

  1. “Common sense is what’s obvious to me.”

^ The rule we probably all use internally, or when not in an argument about what is or is not common sense.

70

Actually, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Aristotle’s definition of common sense. Aristotle used the term to mean the sense we use to discern common sensibles, which are things which are common to more than one of the five senses, such as shape and texture.

As for your definitions:

  1. Which society? As more and more people begin to live in more than one society throughout their lives, how does this change the definition?

  2. I’m not sure how this differs from 1, except for “people who’s understanding you are familiar with”. The thing is, nobody is familiar with what anyone else understands except by inference and assumption. Which causes the same problem that definition 3 gives, namely that to think of any idea as “common” sense is always an unsupported assumption.

71

Common sense is an unsupported assumption. That’s not a problem with it. The term is never used to convince anyone, or to prove a point. You never fully know what everyone around you understands, but on some things you can make pretty accurate guesses. Those things make up the umbrella term of “common sense.”

Your society. The combined culture who’s customs you are familiar with. If you travel and expand your horizons, your notion of “common sense” will diminish in reach. If you don’t, you probably share a lot in common with the rest of your “society” and therefore many things seem to be obvious to you.

I don’t think the two of you are understanding that “common sense” has an entirely subjective definition. There’s little you can point to saying, “That is common sense” and have the rest of the world agree with you. That doesn’t mean the term has no place in society, merely that it is a fluid term, slightly different for every individual and easily subject to change in the light of evidence.

72

Which makes it useless. We are apparently on the same wavelength, except that you say that it is OK to have a word that while meaningless objectively, is ok to be used willy nilly, and I say that since it is entirely subjective it is unecessary and should not be used.

73

I find it interesting that this is such a hot debate. Really, I think common sense can be pretty easily defined:

The logical application of knowledge.

Meaning: I know things, they tell me what will happen when x, or what is the case with y, and so on. How I react to that knowledge is common sense. So I know that fire is hot. Common sense is me not putting my hand in the fire. I know a car moves fast. Common sense tells me not to run in front of a fast-moving car, or I will get hurt. I know that something belongs to a friend. I don’t take it against his will because I don’t want to lose his friendship.

It really doesn’t matter what the knowledge is, or who you are referring to. What matters is how they apply the knowledge they have. So long as they apply it in a way that is to their overall (not necessarily immediate) benefit, then they can be said to be using common sense. That way the definition applies to all societies and peoples, because it is confined to the knowledge that each person has. Easy.

74

See the above problems with that. :wink:

75

So we agree about what “common sense” is, correct? Then the only thing remaining is to debate it’s usefulness in society.

I would request that you present some other means by which a child can go from a virtually clean slate to a functioning member of society. Remember that it would has to be a completely objective process, else it’s rejected by your argument. If you can, I applaud you, because you’ve just made yourself the most famous AI research scientist in existence, and put the rest of us out of a job.

Furthermore, just because the definition is subjective does not mean it cannot be depended on. I trust that a guy across town would have a definition of common sense similar enough to mine to be relevant in a conversation.

76

scule: One would have thought so, but sadly it is not to be.

Epithemus seems to have the opinion that the world is easily broken down into completely objectiive relationships between hard definitions, and therefore subjective concepts like “common sense” merely muddy the waters. I’m arguing with him hoping to fulfill my duty as a Doper to dispel a bit of ignorance. Sadly, it is becoming clear that I’ve been wasting my time. Epithemus seems too entralled with his newfound interest in science to realize that things aren’t always black and white.

77

My definition applies across boundaries, because it is not dependant on any sort of unity that relates to culture or society or race or anything like that, and it doesn’t relate to amounts or degrees. I simply state that we all have knowledge (whatever amount), and common sense is how we apply it. We don’t just watch for passing cars because we are told to, we watch because we know what will happen if we don’t and don’t usually want to get killed or hurt.

It doesn’t matter how we learned something, or whether we had to be taught or if it is intuitive or anything like that. What matters is how it is applied.

In that way, the defintion trancends barriers because it is not rooted in defining the body of knowledge that we can call common sense, it serves as an abstract principle that can be applied to anything that it relates to. Thus, given any instance of knowledge, one can use logic and reason to discern what is a “common sense” application fo that knowledge. In that way, if I have no foreknowledge of rabbit trapping, but it is explained to me, I can use by powers of reason to figure out a common sense application of that trap. In other words, I know - because it is reasinable to know - that if I put down a trap and I know how it works, I should expect it to trap something. Knowing how it works, I will thus not set it off myself, not because I had to be taught not to, but because it makes sense.

Easy.

78

InquisitiveIdiot (great name, by the way, very Socratesean): Thanks, and you’re probably right.

79

Huh??? I thought common sense was the knowledge that was aquired, not the method by which it was aquired? :confused:

Assuming he didn’t just move here from the Amazon river basin. :stuck_out_tongue:

Seriously, I agree with you that the fluid definition of common sense you propose makes sense. The problem is when people assume that such a common sense is universal.

scule, the problem with your definition is that while certain logical capabilities may be quite common, the knowledge which you are applying it to in each of your examples is not. If some common knowledge is not required, then it’s actually personal sense, not common sense, right?

80

If you consider several years worth of interest “newfound” interest in science. If anything I would say that my interest in any branch of philosophy is a much new found interest than my interest in science.

I’m a bit confused on what the debate is turning into, so I will have to consider my next arguments carefully. I will try to form them today but I have a bit of a full schedule planned, so It might be a bit later tonight or tommorow before I can get back to it.
Not trying to drag this out longer than necessary or being pig headed.