Philadelphia, PA

Dear Qazi & readers,

Among other usages, the phrase "common sense," is a recurrent motif of Western philosophy --rooted in Latin philosophy--as suggested above. For example, there was a school of Scottish "common sense philosophy," which had a significant historical influence in the U.S.--becoming quite an orthodoxy for a time in the 19th century. I would say that the "ordinary language" philosophy associated with later Wittgenstein and post-WWII British philosophy is closely connected. Within analytic philosophy, this contended with a rival school of "artificial language" philosophy. When do common notions need to be left behind in view of the advance of knowledge?

The key idea is the appeal to common or predominate, pre-existing belief and conviction as a way to settle difficult questions. While this no doubt has its limits, it is often useful in avoiding undue technicalities and complex debates on difficult topics. At the best it may provide a common starting point for more debated topics or questions --helping to bring philosophy back down from "the clouds."

No doubt the "common sense" of one place or time will not always agree with that of another place or time. But that is no valid objection to consulting common beliefs and concepts at any particular place and time. We want to know what commonalities there are as the basis for further discussion or debate; and in fact some common ideas and beliefs are pretty persistent. For example, though Aristotle's Physics, is often viewed as obsolete and of merely historical interest, Aristotle's Ethics and Politics are still of some considerable contemporary interest. It belongs to the "common sense," of the West, we might say. Though written about 350 BC, Aristotle's Ethics still makes good sense as a way of life --for many at least.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Sahar,

Yes, commun sense is called so because it is commun or frequent. As a see it, commun sense can be seen in a positive mannner in that it incoporates, as it were, chrystalized wisdom and is the oposite of nonsense. Commun sense can also have a negative meaning. Note, for example, that science is just a battle against commun sense. Once, the French epistemoogist Gaston Bachelard astutely remarked that commun sense is a good thing, that is, a good thing to be destroyed or overcome. As a rule of thumb, we should take into account commun sense in our daily lives, but to go beyond it in the scientific domain.

Best regards.

Orlando

Common sense is using appropriate word at appropriate time. When using appropriate word at inappropriate time, may lead to senseless contribution.

It has been observed that in certain cases & advice passed to their associated members that it is the question of the common senses .When we view common sense we generally feel that it is not end sincere attitude which demands a thought & server approach of understanding .

However common sense while using the term the person of the opposite manner in his very known field the other party may not give the reply it has been say that it is a Common sense thereby the person himself found in sorry position & the a feeling of embarrassment .

This is my personal opinion

“Common Sense is so Rare these days it should be classified as Super Power”.

“Common Sense is a Flower that doesn’t Grow in Every one’s Garden”.

“Common Sense is an Endangered Species And Stupidity has taken over the world And Unfortunately there is not Known Cure”.

“Common Sense is like Deodorant these days the people needed most never used it”

Common sense is sound practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge that is shared by nearly all people. The first type of common sense, good sense, can be described as "the knack for seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done." Above Proverbs Explains How much Common Sense we need nowadays and it’s so much Lacking. Regards

common sense is not very common as we think, now we are so automated that we have lost common sense in some basic things of life

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Qazi & readers,

Among other usages, the phrase "common sense," is a recurrent motif of Western philosophy --rooted in Latin philosophy--as suggested above. For example, there was a school of Scottish "common sense philosophy," which had a significant historical influence in the U.S.--becoming quite an orthodoxy for a time in the 19th century. I would say that the "ordinary language" philosophy associated with later Wittgenstein and post-WWII British philosophy is closely connected. Within analytic philosophy, this contended with a rival school of "artificial language" philosophy. When do common notions need to be left behind in view of the advance of knowledge?

The key idea is the appeal to common or predominate, pre-existing belief and conviction as a way to settle difficult questions. While this no doubt has its limits, it is often useful in avoiding undue technicalities and complex debates on difficult topics. At the best it may provide a common starting point for more debated topics or questions --helping to bring philosophy back down from "the clouds."

No doubt the "common sense" of one place or time will not always agree with that of another place or time. But that is no valid objection to consulting common beliefs and concepts at any particular place and time. We want to know what commonalities there are as the basis for further discussion or debate; and in fact some common ideas and beliefs are pretty persistent. For example, though Aristotle's Physics, is often viewed as obsolete and of merely historical interest, Aristotle's Ethics and Politics are still of some considerable contemporary interest. It belongs to the "common sense," of the West, we might say. Though written about 350 BC, Aristotle's Ethics still makes good sense as a way of life --for many at least.

H.G. Callaway

Common sense is what tells us the earth is flat. ― Stuart Chase

“Because you can't argue with all the fools in the world. It's easier to let them have their way, then trick them when they're not paying attention.” ― Christopher Paolini

Common sense is neither common nor sense. There's not a whole of sound judgment going on these days, so it's not common. If common sense was common, then most people wouldn't make the kinds of decisions they do every day. Common sense isn't real sense, if we define sense as being sound judgment, because relying on experience alone doesn't usually offer enough information to draw reliable conclusions.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Salihu & readers,

If common sense is cultural, even culturally bound, then it would seem to follow that its not subjective. If everyone or nearly everyone in a given culture holds to more or less the same common-sense, notions, then this would seem to be an objective fact about the group --moreover a good place to start a discussion or debate within the specific group.

H.G. Callaway

Common sense is very uncommon.

Acting according the common sense - that is, as it is generally accepted - I do not see anything wrong in this. Common Sense is our Cultural Heritage!

Since following the common sense we always get the results we want to achieve. Another thing is that following the common sense people do not think that there can be [and certainly do exist] the other, including easier simple ways to achieve the goal. Acting within the framework of the common sense we also remember with love those from whom we received this knowledge. There is a lot of Sense to follow the common sense!

Common sense gives us the unstanied and unbiased of our feelings. But feelings in most cases are not connected to truth and hence they delude truth. Truth however, is the one that establishes the proper descriptions, relations and functioning of things.

Any structure, science, social or otherwise is better of when it is established on the basis of truth.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Readers,

It may be that "common sense" is more common in some societies than in others?

The idea is closely related to the political notion that a smaller country based on cultural (ethnic, linguistic and religious) uniformity is easier to govern. Countries of great spralling cultural differences have a greater tendency to come apart at the ethnic seams. (Witness, say British India at independence, or the old Russian imperium at the fall of the Soviet Union.)

This is not to say that such large and diverse countries are impossible, but domestic policy in particular tends to be more contentious and divisive --there is a greater tendency toward domestic factionalism. More uniform polities are nimbler with domestic policy, though sometimes excessively rigid in foreign affairs.

If you want an overview of the common sense of a given society, look at its best dictionaries. These reflect empirical regularities in the ways in which words of their language are actually used --which reflect in turn, underlying practices.

For example, everyone believes that gold is a valuable metal. Its a matter of common sense. If someone says, in contrast, e.g., that gold is a kind of plastic, it would seem to be nonsense. If there really were no commonalities of belief, values and attitude in a given society, only force or threat of force would hold it together.

Right? If not why not?

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Koli & readers,

I suspect you owe us some account of what you mean by "common sense."

Your comment may well match your own experience. Still, it strikes me a suggestive of elitist attitudes.

What are the "kinds of decisions" you have in mind--that are so poorly made?

Common sense, is "good judgement" viewed from the perspective of the historical experience of a people living in common. It reflects their commonalities of thought and practice --which become established over time. This does not make it infallible of course.

But, then, the critics of common sense are not infallible either! When you make your negative judgments on "common sense," might you not be appealing to the "common good judgment" of some other reference group--who you would expect to mostly agree with you?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Common sense is neither common nor sense. There's not a whole of sound judgment going on these days, so it's not common. If common sense was common, then most people wouldn't make the kinds of decisions they do every day. Common sense isn't real sense, if we define sense as being sound judgment, because relying on experience alone doesn't usually offer enough information to draw reliable conclusions.

Dear H. G. Callaway,

Let me say that I truly appreciated to read your schoolary and erudite answer to Sahar's question. I wished that all of our comments were as informed and perceptive as yours. If I am not wrong, it is the first time that I say what I am saying of your post. It is often the case that our peers (not is this thread) make use of personal or general accusations and attacks instead of saying in a clear way what they have to say. As I see it, an intellectual forum is the right place to exchange constructive perspectives and viewpoints, even when otherwise ingenious disagreements are the case.

With my highest regards.

Orlando

this link is useful

https://www.commonsense.org/

regards

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Lourenco & readers,

Many thanks for your kind words!

Might we not also speak of the "common sense" of the educated public, say?

H.G. Callaway

It is common sense in what is known as automatic sociology, which justifies social phenomena, and this common sense stems from the texts to understand the reality to reach the absolute certainty of carrying value judgments that are self-defined, and the common sense is full of diaries (Aristotelian logic) in understanding phenomena, Logic says that the "thing and its opposite metaphor" is a break between the object and its opposite (eg right, wrong, woman, man ...). In addition, common sense is overcome by the ready judgments stemming from ideological thinking (99%), Of reality

Common sense means generally acceptable set of rules or behaviors for any society in the world.

As for the scientific sense, it explains the social phenomena within the framework of scientific methods that can be verified. This sense stems from reality to understand reality and sets probability theories to understand the reality ... Everything is relative, in the sense that there are no absolute scientific judgments and this scientific sense does not give us The sense of science is based on dialectic thinking (dialectic Hilgili) in understanding phenomena, meaning that (the thing carries the opposite) and that there is an integral relationship between the extremes (eg, the rightness of it) A percentage of the error and error in which the proportion of the right, and what I consider the right to consider it is not The proportion of the ideological thinking in the sense of science reaches to about one hundred percent of the total number of women. 60%, that is, it does not distort reality as it does common sense

Based on these data, we can draw a rough comparison between common sense and scientific sense and their effectiveness in understanding sociological phenomena in a sociological manner characterized by objectivity:

Common sense justifies reality, does not explain it, distort it, and it is blind, because we can not build scientific thinking on it because it depends on the diodes (which do not actually exist but only in the minds of people), unlike the dialectical thinking on which science is based. Objectively without issuing valuable judgments and without relying on ready judgments

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Zemali,

Thanks for your comments here.

I don't think anyone ever supposed that the purpose of common sense is to "build scientific thinking."

But the sciences, too, have their own version of "common sense," which involves the standards of judgement which lead or inhibit acceptance of new proposals in the sciences. The scientists know what has been accepted in the past, and something of the grounds of its acceptance. They build from that foundation, sometimes correcting it, but mostly keeping it in place.

For example, if Einstein's theory of gravity and spacetime had not substantially duplicated the well confirmed results of Newtonian physics (whatever new predictions it made), then no one would have given it a second thought. (BTW: no dialectical baloney in that judgment.)

Rejecting the concept of common sense, in a democratic polity, as it seems to me, amounts to rejecting the democratic standard of the "consent of the governed." How else could the governed judge of the acceptability of new proposals in law, give or withhold their consent, but to apply their own, commonly accepted beliefs and values?

H.G. Callaway

Based on the French language; in "common sense"; "common" could mean accepted and shared by most people. When we say something that has "common sense" could be that the idea is accepted as logical and understood by most people.

In fragmenting society the common sense is also fragmented. There is no agreement between groups about what the common sense is or should be.

Considerable differences occur between countries.

Example is bringing American professionals to work and live in Europe for a number of years with little or no preparation for the culture shock. Some people made the transition and others didn't with little success in predicting which would succeed or fail. Language was not the largest barrier. The concept of common sense was transported, but not received by the new neighborhood.

Dear common sense community,

If I am not wrong, most of previous answers speak in favor of the idea that, unfortunatley, common sense often lacks in our daily lives, and abounds in the scientific domain. When common sense lacks in our daily lives we risk forgetting wise and widespread ways of acting, thinking and feeling. When common sense abounds in the scientific domain we risk falling prey to ready made and established truths, the mainstream, and the satus quo. As I see it, science intends to go beyond the common sense, to look for the unknown, and raise, say, "irritating" questions, that is, questions whose response leads us to advance knowledge and a better knowledge of the unknown. By defintion, science is, say, a batlle against the common sense or what appears to be the case but it is not generally, if not always, the case. It is often said that if we want to get ahead in the scientific domain we have to have a theory or even a metathory, that is, a new and uncommon way of looking at the world and submit it, for example, to the Popperian "test" of falsifiability or/and John Laudan's "test" of progressive research programs.

Kind regards,

Orlando Lourenço

Common sense is knowledge attained from information around us, but don't confuse ‘science’ with ‘common sense'. Scientific knowledge is knowledge attained through observation and experimentation on a particular subject, rather it is "trained and organised common sense". .

Through my experience, common sense is uncommon!

Dear Sir Amir W. Al-Khafaji ,

In my experiences in Bangladesh , I have found common people of the society use their common sense rather than the educated and well-off of the society . On the other hand, patiences, education, and other related works, women are more advances in using common sense.

Thanks

Thank you all for your best answers.

Best regards,

SQ

Common sense depends on experience and logic

"Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has." - Rene Descartes

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Lourenço & readers,

I chiefly agree with what you say below, but I feel a slight difference in emphasis that may be worth exploring.

The basis of ordinary common sense is not science, in the usual case, but ordinary experience historically developed in any particular social group. Sciences can and do have a long-term corrective effects on common sense, as I see it, which is capable of slow modification in accordance with changing mores and practices of a society. But I do not see the objective of science as that of overthrowing common sense all together. This is no more the case than it is the objective of the sciences that everyone become a scientist. Still, surely, the sciences do look to go beyond common sense, when it becomes problematic. When there is no evident problem, however, science and common sense can live in peace with each other.

Common sense has more to do with ordinary ways of life--rooted in existing social and economic practices. All of this often has little direct relation to advances in the sciences. But here is a simple example of revision. When I was growing up we said that sugar melts when you put it in a cup of coffee and equally, that the wax of a candle melts when you light it. This ignores the chemists' and the physicists' distinction between dissolving, was with the sugar in the coffee and "change of state," as in the melting of wax or of ice. Perhaps we would now days say that the sugar dissolves in the coffee. But the reasons the sciences have for insisting on the differences focuses on advances in science--having to do with the importance, say of standard solutions in chemical analysis and related matters. This is chiefly unrelated to one's morning coffee, but there is some tendency toward change in common parlance.

While the beliefs or theories commonly accepted in the sciences are subject to experiments and testing in the laboratory and otherwise, common sense is only testable in social experience. One understands the conservatism of common sense and ordinary belief, then, primarily, not as a resistance to science, but instead in connection with the continuity of ordinary everyday life. People are often reluctant to undertake changes, since social and political innovations are only tested by social and political change --ultimately in social and political conflicts--even revolution and war. As long as life goes on, as expected, people are often unwilling to undertake risky experiments --one sees from this perspective part of the meaning of "the habits of the heart."

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

As I see it, science intends to go beyond the common sense, to look for the unknown, and raise, say, "irritating" questions, that is, questions whose response leads us to advance knowledge and a better knowledge of the unknown. By definition, science is, say, a battle against the common sense or what appears to be the case but it is not generally, if not always, the case. It is often said that if we want to get ahead in the scientific domain we have to have a theory or even a metatheory, that is, a new and uncommon way of looking at the world and submit it, for example, to the Popperian "test" of falsifiability or/and John Laudan's "test" of progressive research programs.

Dear Callaway,

Thank you very much for your wise elaborations on science and common sense. Thanks to them I could see that science and common sense can live in peace with each other. I was more than happy to know that you chiefly agree with what I said in my previous comments, even though you feel a slight difference in emphasis that may be worth exploring. You cogently elaborate and explore these differences.

With my highest regards.

O. M. Lourenço

According to the essay: “A defense of the common sense” published by G. E. Moore in 1925, the common sense is a collection of beliefs and facts that are absolutely true. The full text of this interesting work is available at:

http://www.ditext.com/moore/common-sense.html

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Bura & readers,

Perhaps we could better say that our doubting of some things presupposes other, comparatively unproblematic belief. That's why we can't doubt of everything at once in the style, say, of Descartes' plan?

"Certainty" is a tricky word to depend on in this juncture.

H.G. Callaway

Think common sense is general taste

It is so totally admitted that Erostrate burned up Diana's Temple in Ephesus that nobody worries about how to burn a stone temple. This is Common Stupidity and it have energetic defenders.

Dear common sense community:

I wonder whether this is common sense: The fool wants to say something wheares the wise has something to say. To my understading, there is a time for words a time for remain silent. We all know of many people who want to some something, but only few people who have anything significant to say. I stick to the latter and do not follow the former. What about you?

@Fred Romano

RE: It is so totally admitted that Erostrate burned up Diana's Temple in Ephesus that nobody worries about how to burn a stone temple.

Bricks don't burn either, but brick buildings sure do. Temples would've contained a lot of combustible material. Herostratus, in fact, set fire to the wooden roof-beams:

http://scihi.org/herostratus-temple-artemis/

Common sense, defined as "sound judgment derived from experience rather than study," is one of the most revered qualities in America. It evokes images of early and simpler times in which industrious men and women built our country into what it is today. People with common sense are seen as reasonable, down to earth, reliable, and practical.

But here's the catch. Common sense is neither common nor sense. There's not a whole of sound judgment going on these days (though whether it is worse than in the past, I can't be sure), so it's not common. If common sense was common, then most people wouldn't make the kinds of decisions they do every day. People wouldn't buy stuff they can't afford. They wouldn't smoke cigarettes or eat junk food. They wouldn't gamble. And if you want to get really specific and timely, politicians wouldn't be tweeting pictures of their private parts to strangers. In other words, people wouldn't do the multitude of things that are clearly not good for them.

And common sense isn't real sense, if we define sense as being sound judgment, because relying on experience alone doesn't usually offer enough information to draw reliable conclusions. Heck, I think common sense is a contradiction in terms. Real sense can rarely be derived from experience alone because most people's experiences are limited.

In fact, I think that so-called common sense is a fallacy that has been foisted on us by our culture of ideology (any ideology that wants to tell us what we should think and do) that prefers us to be stupid, ill informed, and poor decision makers. Sorry to get a bit political here, but common sense is even used as an ideological cudgel by conservatives in which so-called coastal elites lack common sense and, as a result, are out of touch with "real Americans" who apparently have an abundance of common sense. But, if we use our elected representatives as examples (though I can't vouch for how representative they actually are), I think it's safe to say that unsound judgment, that is, the absence of common sense, doesn't discriminate based on political ideology.

The word common, by definition, suggests that common sense is held by a large number of people. But the idea that if most people think something makes sense then it must be sound judgment has been disproven time and time again. Further, it is often people who might be accused of not having common sense who prove that what is common sense is not only not sense, but also completely wrong. And, by the way, common sense is often used by people who don't have the real knowledge, expertise, or direct experience to actually make sound judgments.

The unfortunate reality is that trusting common sense, in point of fact, causes us to make poor rather than sound judgments. Perhaps the biggest problem with common sense is that it falls prey to the clear limits of personal experience. Or, we don't even have any actual experience in the matter and rely simply on what we believe to be true or have been told is true, what we might label "faith-based sense" (in the broadest sense of the word faith). For example, when you're having a discussion about just about anything that requires taking a stand, for example, the weather, the economy, raising children, sports, what have you, how often do you hear some variation of "Well, it's been my experience that [fill in the blank]" and the person then draws a conclusion based on said experience? And how often is that conclusion wildly at odds with the facts? More often than not in my experience (though, of course, my experience may be insufficient to draw a truly sound conclusion).

I think we need to jettison this notion of the sanctity of common sense and instead embrace "reasoned sense," that is, sound judgment based on rigorous study of an issue (which also includes direct experience). Of course, we can't do an in-depth scientific study of every issue for which we need to draw a conclusion or make a decision. We can't, in the formal sense, do a review of the literature that includes relevant theories and the scientific findings to date, prepare detailed hypotheses, design a formal methodology, collect data, and employ complex statistical analyses from which we draw conclusions. But we can, and should, apply many of these basic principles of the scientific method in more informal ways to our daily lives.

In fact, I think that a course in scientific thinking and methodology for everyday life should be a requirement for all students. Such proactive education about precise thinking and real sense might reduce the number of truly dunderhead things that subsequent generations will do (the current generations are probably beyond remediation).

Here are some ways in which people can engage in more "sensical" thinking, whether common or otherwise (what does it matter where sense comes from as long as it does truly reflect sound judgment?).

First, we can begin our " inquiry" with an open mind, something sorely lacking in matters both trivial (e.g., Who's better, Red Sox or Yankees. Red Sox, of course) and substantial (e.g., how to fix the budget deficit) these days. Without being receptive to answers that we may not want to hear, we might as well just ask ourselves what we want to be true and go with that, which is what many people with so-called common sense (most efficient, but often wrong).

Second, we all establish hypotheses that we would like to see affirmed when we are asking questions in our lives, for example, about relationships (e.g., "I know she likes me.") or the economy (e.g. "It's definitely picking up."). But for hypotheses to be more than just foregone conclusions (e.g., the world is flat; oops!), it's important to also propose alternative hypotheses (e.g., maybe the world is round or square). Just considering that there might be answers other than the ones we want ensures that any "experiment" we conduct isn't just an exercise in self-serving affirmation (e.g., drug trials done by pharmaceutical companies).

Third, we can collect a sizable sample of data that is more likely to representative of the population as a whole. So, instead of just asking a few friends their opinions on an issue (which are likely similar to our own), we ask others, particularly those we know to have differing views. Does that guarantee sound judgments? Of course not. But does it make it more likely that whatever conclusion is drawn will be closer to reality? Absolutely.

Fourth, we can analyze the data as objectively as possible. Let's be realistic. No one likes to see their "theories" disproven. And there's a cynical saying in the sciences, "If the facts don't fit the theory, throw out the facts." Also, don't forget "GIGO" (Garbage In, Garbage Out) which describes the "failures in human decision making due to faulty, incomplete, or imprecise data" (thanks Wikipedia). The scientific method attempts to prevent both sayings from being realized by using statistical analyses that, at least in theory, don't allow for the intrusion of human biases (recent research has found this assumption presumptuous, but it's the best we have at this point).

The bottom line is that if we can learn to think in more open and rigorous ways, we can draw the most accurate conclusions and make the best decisions possible for the myriad of questions, concerns, and issues we face every day, be they mundane or impactful. And we might just all get along a little better too.

Best Regards Sahar Qazi

@Karl Pfeifer Are you sure one of the Seven Marvels of the World was done out of bricks? Most probably with marble. Don't forget it was also one of the first bank in the world. So, Erostatus's act turns largely anti-system instead of anti-cultural, anti-beautiful; Erostratus the slave violently breaks up in existence, against class system and money tyranny. It was indeed Euhémerus 's Philosophy as inventor of Utopia (1900 years before Thomas More).

Common sense is a sense which is not common.

Not too Common. Regards

I know one thing for sure; common sense is not common and don’t ever underestimate the power of ignorance.

Common sense is not real, if we define the sense of good governance, because reliance on experience alone does not usually provide sufficient information to draw reliable conclusions. Heck, I think common sense is a contradiction in terminology. Rarely can the real meaning be derived from experience alone because the experiences of most people are limited.

Common sense is not so common and it is partly because our past upbringings and situations we have dealt with are also not so common.

Why Common Sense Isn’t so Common

https://www.secretentourage.com/motivation/why-common-sense-isnt-common/