Common Sense

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?

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

But does contradicting common sense have any bearing on how true something actually is?That is the question.

Hello Ray,I think you are missing the point/s. 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 factsEdited by RAZD, : concept not commentEdited 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) • • •

Hi, Straggler.I have just a minor contribution to the sub-thread about common sense hypotheses: 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.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

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.

Please refrain from discussing things with CFO when he is obviously off topic. Thank you.

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.

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 .

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.

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 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.

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.