Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,137 Year: 5,394/9,624 Month: 419/323 Week: 59/204 Day: 1/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Common Sense
Straggler
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 16 of 37 (487623)
11-02-2008 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
11-02-2008 7:05 PM


Re: common sense is world view applied to reality
. I think common sense is a perfectly valid starting point for an initial hypothesis. However the key is to follow the subsequent evidence wherever it may lead without clinging onto this initial common sense assumption.
The problem with this is that it is limiting your starting point, quite possibly to starting in the wrong direction.
It took from Aristotle to Galileo to get beyond the "common sense" view to actually testing it.
As long as the common sense notion is treated as a genuine hypothesis (i.e. something that needs to be tested and verified) and not a fact (as was the case with the example you cite) I still think common sense notions will provide an inevitable and valid starting point for investigation.
But this is a minor difference of opinion really.
What this thread needs is an advocate of common sense as a viable means of making conclusions. Any creationists out there willing to defend common sense over scientific conclusions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2008 7:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 11-02-2008 8:54 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 25 by straightree, posted 11-08-2008 5:42 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3157 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 17 of 37 (487624)
11-02-2008 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
11-01-2008 9:33 PM


Re: common sense is world view applied to reality
Is there a role for common sense in science ...
No, because science needs to test all our understandings of reality, while common sense is just pretending that your beliefs are true.
Comments admit that evolution is anti-common sense. This is what happens when God is dismissed as creator of living things----nothing makes sense. Admissions also prove that evolution is false and that the evolutionist is too deluded to see it.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 11-01-2008 9:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Straggler, posted 11-02-2008 7:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2008 7:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 11-02-2008 9:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 37 (487625)
11-02-2008 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
11-02-2008 7:13 PM


Re: common sense is world view applied to reality
Comments admit that evolution is anti-common sense.
But does contradicting common sense have any bearing on how true something actually is?
That is the question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-02-2008 7:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1514 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 37 (487629)
11-02-2008 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
11-02-2008 7:13 PM


common sense is like "accepted truth" - subjective
Hello Ray,
I think you are missing the point/s.
Comments admit that evolution is anti-common sense. This is what happens when God is dismissed as creator of living things----nothing makes sense. Admissions also prove that evolution is false and that the evolutionist is too deluded to see it.
For one, we were talking about science in general, not evolution, and to equate the two is not common sense. People should know that chemistry, physics and geology are not biological sciences, for instance.
Second, not being limited to only considering "common sense" hypothesis does not mean that none are considered. Curiously, once science has demonstrated the validity of a concept it can become "common sense" ... such as that the earth orbits the sun.
Third, you seem to have somehow equated "common sense" with belief in (your personal version of) god, when "what you believe" includes a lot of other things (such as rocks falling when dropped, and the sun rising in the east).
One could just as easily use "accepted truth" instead of "common sense" and you will see the same problem -- "accepted" by who? and the question of why should we not test those "accepted truth" instead of assume they are true? Before Copernicus it was an "accepted truth" that the sun orbited the earth. Before Galileo it was an "accepted truth" that different weights fell at different speeds. Changing these "accepted truths" to the ones we use today does not mean (a) that your religion is dismissed or ignored or (b) that the new "accepted truths" are correct. They just give us a better basis for understanding the reality, reality that may have been created or may have happened by its own free will ...
If you really want to know the truth you have to treat all concepts with open-minded skepticism, and test them for validity rather than blindly accept any. That means not ruling out god as much as it means not ruling out evolution without having tested reasons for doing so.
So far, I have seen no test that rules out either.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : truth not facts
Edited by RAZD, : concept not comment
Edited by RAZD, : just the fax

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-02-2008 7:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2807 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 37 (487639)
11-02-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
11-02-2008 7:12 PM


Re: common sense is world view applied to reality
Hi, Straggler.
I have just a minor contribution to the sub-thread about common sense hypotheses:
Straggler writes:
As long as the common sense notion is treated as a genuine hypothesis (i.e. something that needs to be tested and verified) and not a fact (as was the case with the example you cite) I still think common sense notions will provide an inevitable and valid starting point for investigation.
I think "common sense" is most effectively used as a null hypothesis in scientific studies.
For example, the per capita rates of influence of spiders and other arthropod predators on populations of agricultural pests have been recorded in many entomological publications. The "common sense" prediction is that, in a system including multiple predator species, each species would still exhibit the same per capita effect on the prey population.
As it turns out, this isn't the case: individuals in multiple-predator systems often display a greater per capita rate than individuals in single-predator systems. This is often because individuals are more likely to interact and compete with individuals of their own species than individuals of other species. Thus, competitive interactions are decreased as conspecific (same-species) predators are replaced with heterospecific (different-species) predators.
But, once this was discovered, it seemed so obvious that we thought we should have considered it common sense all along. So, now we have a new "common sense" null hypothesis to use in our next round of studies.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 11-02-2008 7:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 11-03-2008 2:47 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 37 (487643)
11-02-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object
11-02-2008 7:13 PM


More nonsense
Comments admit that evolution is anti-common sense. This is what happens when God is dismissed as creator of living things----nothing makes sense. Admissions also prove that evolution is false and that the evolutionist is too deluded to see it.
More preaching in the science forum. Your comments are unsupported by any scientific evidence, as is usual for you.
Let me ask you a question: do you truly not know how science works, or do you know how it works but just reject it because of your religious beliefs?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-02-2008 7:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AdminNosy, posted 11-02-2008 11:41 PM Coyote has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 22 of 37 (487650)
11-02-2008 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coyote
11-02-2008 9:09 PM


Not on topic
Please refrain from discussing things with CFO when he is obviously off topic. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 11-02-2008 9:09 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 23 of 37 (487694)
11-03-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
11-02-2008 8:54 PM


Re: common sense is world view applied to reality
I think "common sense" is most effectively used as a null hypothesis in scientific studies.
A typical biologists answer
I think you are probably right.
As a starting point for investigation the common sense assumption seems, to me, to be a fairly reasonable hypothesis in most cases. As long as we don't insist on clinging to such starting points purely on the basis of desiring commonsense answers to be true, the evidence should ultimately win through whatever starting position is chosen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 11-02-2008 8:54 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1613 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 24 of 37 (487703)
11-03-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
11-01-2008 7:41 PM


Common sense in my opinion is those notions that allow abstract, intangiables to formulate a outcome without having to go through and systematically calculate all the variables etc.. It serves as a fast way to make decisions when quick decision making is needed. But not just because something appears to be obvious does it mean that it is common sense. If I spend all my money, then common sense would dictate I can not afford to go out to eat tonight. However just because this is a self evident truth, It still did not keep the vast numbers of American populace from making bad economic decisions .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 11-01-2008 7:41 PM Straggler has not replied

  
straightree
Member (Idle past 4860 days)
Posts: 57
From: Near Olot, Spain
Joined: 09-26-2008


Message 25 of 37 (488205)
11-08-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
11-02-2008 7:12 PM


Re: common sense is world view applied to reality
quote:
What this thread needs is an advocate of common sense as a viable means of making conclusions. Any creationists out there willing to defend common sense over scientific conclusions?
There seems to be none. Maybe, after all, they/we are not as fool as Taz asumes.

Creationism and evolutionism should not be mutually excluding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 11-02-2008 7:12 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 11-08-2008 5:51 PM straightree has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3401 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 26 of 37 (488207)
11-08-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by straightree
11-08-2008 5:42 PM


Re: common sense is world view applied to reality
What are you talking about? I haven't said anything even close to foolish or whatnot. All I've said is people have different ways at viewing things that influence their common sense. You people pray for things to happen while I try to make things happen. May be I'm the foolish one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by straightree, posted 11-08-2008 5:42 PM straightree has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by straightree, posted 11-09-2008 4:32 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3401 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 27 of 37 (488209)
11-08-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Straggler
11-02-2008 3:10 PM


Re: ignorance and common "sense"
Straggler writes:
As a secondary school teacher I remember asking a class of 11/12 year olds their opinion on this broad scenario (a rock moving in space). They all were of the opinion that the object would eventually come to rest because "it would run out of energy" (or similar notions). Was this a common sense conclusion?
This is the same conclusion the ancient Greek philosophers came to. In this case, we are looking at the type of common sense derived from everyday experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 11-02-2008 3:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2008 6:43 PM Taz has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 28 of 37 (488218)
11-08-2008 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taz
11-08-2008 5:55 PM


Re: ignorance and common "sense"
As a secondary school teacher I remember asking a class of 11/12 year olds their opinion on this broad scenario (a rock moving in space). They all were of the opinion that the object would eventually come to rest because "it would run out of energy" (or similar notions). Was this a common sense conclusion?
This is the same conclusion the ancient Greek philosophers came to. In this case, we are looking at the type of common sense derived from everyday experience.
Yep. Which I think leads us to two conclusions:
1) No matter how intelligent those forming the conclusions might be, there is no substitute for empirically testing theories in order to render them reliable.
2) Common sense can be a very unreliable and poor measure of veracity.
Both of which suggest that when common sense alone is the basis for an argument any conclusions derived are inferior as compared to tested scientific conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 11-08-2008 5:55 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Taz, posted 11-08-2008 6:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3401 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 29 of 37 (488220)
11-08-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
11-08-2008 6:43 PM


Re: ignorance and common "sense"
Straggler writes:
Both of which suggest that when common sense alone is the basis for an argument any conclusions derived are inferior as compared to tested scientific conclusions.
Not necessarily. I'd say that common sense is enough for me to believe gay people deserve happiness just like the rest of us no matter what christian liars and christian bigots say. I don't care what kind of scientific evidence you bring to the table contradicting this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2008 6:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 11-08-2008 7:10 PM Taz has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 175 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 37 (488221)
11-08-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Taz
11-08-2008 6:59 PM


Re: ignorance and common "sense"
Both of which suggest that when common sense alone is the basis for an argument any conclusions derived are inferior as compared to tested scientific conclusions.
Not necessarily. I'd say that common sense is enough for me to believe gay people deserve happiness just like the rest of us no matter what christian liars and christian bigots say. I don't care what kind of scientific evidence you bring to the table contradicting this.
To be clear I was talking about empirical conclusions regarding the nature of reality and the workings of nature. I don't think any amount of empirical evidence can ever tell us who should or should not be deserving of happiness (or anything else).
Such questions are moral, social or philosophical questions. Science may provide facts on which some such decisions might be made better informed but empirical investigation is never going to tell us what is right or what we should do with that information.
This thread was intended to be about the reliability of empirical conclusions and the role of common sense in drawing such conclusions.
If you think common sense has a role in moral decisions as well that might be an interesting tangent.......?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Taz, posted 11-08-2008 6:59 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taz, posted 11-08-2008 10:48 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024