Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktAfter wading through the 14th A discussion between Scott, QB, and Mark, lms’ comment about common sense coincidentally reflected one of Prof. Volokh’s posts on VC. So, I thought I’d quote it here, not in response to lms, but just because of my own frustrations with the idea of “common sense.”
I’ve often seen people — usually on my side of the political aisle — praise “common sense,” and condemn those who make fancy arguments that defy common sense. Here’s an example, from a Reason column:
So why do intelligent people consistently make such a hash of things? Because they are smart enough to talk themselves into anything. Ordinary mortals don’t engage in fancy mental gymnastics to reach conclusions that defy common sense. But intellectuals are particularly prone to this.
I’ve always been skeptical of such praise of common sense, for two related reasons.
First, common sense often leads us to the wrong results. That’s especially evident in places where the rightness of the right result can be proven, such as mathematics, physics, astronomy, and so on. It often takes some pretty “fancy mental gymnastics” rather than “common sense” to solve problems in those fields.
And it’s also true in more practical fields, such as economics. I suspect that to many people it’s common sense that if you want the store shelves to always be filled, you need to have someone centrally planning production or distribution; the “invisible hand” can easily be dismissed as “fancy mental gymnastics” by those whose common sense inclines them against that explanation. Likewise, it was probably common sense to many that alcohol kills lots of people, directly and indirectly, and therefore banning it might be good — and it’s still common sense to many that guns kill lots of people, directly and indirectly, and therefore banning them might be good.
Second, even if your reaction to these matters is, “no, my common sense tells me that the free market is great, and this common sense is correct,” perhaps your common sense is in large measure molded by the “fancy mental gymnastics” of others — Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and the like. And while your and my common sense may be well-tutored on these particular points, it’s likely that there are many other points, in the policy world and out of it, on which our common sense misleads us.
Of course, this isn’t to say that common sense always leads us astray even in the policy world.
Moreover, common sense may often be more helpful in day-to-day personal and business decisions — where we have been tutored by repeated exposure, and by having a strong personal incentive to get those decisions right — than it is with policy or scientific judgments in which we have little experience. And I’ll be the first to admit that intellectuals often get things wrong. But I’m not sure that extolling common sense, and condemning conclusions that defy common sense, is a good rule of thumb for dealing with complicated questions of science, economics, social policy, or foreign policy.-
The comments are somewhat entertaining: Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Hi MikeGreat postI'm going to make my own comment before I delve into the comments of others. I don't find that most people make common sense arguments against science. They may disagree with the application of scientific principles but I think it's pretty difficult to argue scientific results unless you're actually a scientist with an opposing study. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that generally, a scientific fact as formulated through years of research and study is pretty tough to dispute using common sense.I agree that common sense is built into a person over years of influence from other factors so in that sense it is not common but unique. So I guess we could conclude that it is a faulty description of opinion.I do not however, think a lack of specific higher educated knowledge in a subject precludes discussion of said subject. As scott will tell you he's always trying to get us to define the terms, so perhaps a better word for common sense is opinion? I usually ask a lot of questions so here's one, is there such a thing as a personal brand of logic or is logic always a scientific process that precludes debate?I believe I only have expertise in three subjects, Quick Books, quilting and grief counseling, but I do have opinions and a thirst for knowledge in many other subjects. I may never use the words "common sense" again though.
LikeLike
Oh, and I may not ever try to participate in another legal debate as I was clearly behind the curve in that one. Legalese defies "logic" in many instances, "in my opinion"…………..
LikeLike
Common sense is usually shorthand for "based on my life experience, what you are doing or planning or saying seems really bone headed". Common sense as a measurable quantity with specific standardized metrics . . . well, I don't think there's such a thing. Like art, we frequently know it when we see it. Meaning, mostly, things that make sense to us, based on our experiences, and our belief that many people we like and respect share our perspective on this particular matter. Common sense is most commonly evoked with someone believes there is an absence of it. Thus, if you are an intelligent adult, and are walking through a construction zone without a hard hat the day after someone sustained a severe head injury–I say you lack common sense. From my perspective, you should have every reason to take this basic precaution. Your failure to do so means you lack common sense. Of course, when I found out you had just gotten a call from the state police, who had just told you that your wife and children had been in a fatal car accident, and you were stumbling out to your car to go to the morgue . . . then my assessment that you were lacking "common sense" seems itself thoughtless. You were clearly dazed by grief and tragedy, and focused on more pressing issues than the .01% probability that something might be dropped on your head.Common sense tends to be experiential, observational, and conditional. It is consistent with our experiences and observations, but is not rigorously tested. Common sense would tell us that the sun revolves around the earth, because that's what it looks like. Common sense would also tell us that the sun will rise in the east, because it always has risen in the east. I don't know that common sense would necessarily tell you that the earth was flat, given that the horizon does not extend out into infinity, which one would think it should, if it was flat and longer than 20 miles. Of course, once we start sailing, clearly common sense would tell you the earth is curved, as you watch sailing ships slowly disappear past the horizon line. I'm not sure I'd call my position on free markets or the government's role in providing for the public good as being common sense. I suppose in some sense, this is true, but I think it's also often what we refer to as "intuition". I don't have numerous examples or real life comparisons in which to determine that it is common sense that a Bush style SS reform would be a net positive over time, but I do have an intuition that this is true. So . . . sometimes it's just a matter of what we call it.
LikeLike
" I suspect that to many people it’s common sense that if you want the store shelves to always be filled, you need to have someone centrally planning production or distribution;"I don't see how this could possible be a common sense conclusion. Intuition, maybe, but what sort of consistent pattern of experiences could help mold such a thought into even erroneous "common sense"? 😉
LikeLike
"I don't see how this could possible be a common sense conclusion."It seems more like a common knowledge conclusion which to me seems different than common sense. I suppose it is more of a common sense opinion than thinking magicl evles are involved in keeping the shelves filled.
LikeLike
Welcome. Mike.From the article:But I’m not sure that extolling common sense, and condemning conclusions that defy common sense, is a good rule of thumb for dealing with complicated questions of science, economics, social policy, or foreign policy.When has such a thing been extolled/condemned? I suppose the argument has been made at some point by someone, but it doesn't seem to me to be very, er, common. (ha, ha) BTW, I'm sure our lawyers can chime in here, but there is a corrolary to "common sense" that is actually enshrined in our legal system, called the Reasonable Man Theory.
LikeLike
ashot:It seems more like a common knowledge…Can something be called "knowledge" if it isn't true? Production and distribution of, say, grocery store goods is extremely de-centralized, yet my store shelves remain very well stocked pretty much all the time.
LikeLike
"BTW, I'm sure our lawyers can chime in here, but there is a corrolary to "common sense" that is actually enshrined in our legal system, called the Reasonable Man Theory." From the Michigan Civil Jury Instructions on negligence:Ordinary care means the care a reasonably careful *person would use. Therefore, by “negligence,” I mean the failure to do something that a reasonably careful *person would do, or the doing of something that a reasonably careful *person would not do, under the circumstances that you find existed in this case.The law does not say what a reasonably careful *person using ordinary care would or would not do under such circumstances. That is for you to decide.Another jury instruction used commonly urges juries to apply common sense when considering comment made by attorneys. There is also a fair amount of effort to separate issues that are common sense from those that require specialized knowledge. For instance, plaintiff attorneys frequently attempt to bring claims under a general negligence theory rather than as a medical malpractice case because one a general negligence claim does not require you to present an expert witness and therefore, saves you money.
LikeLike
That's a great observation by Scott about the concept of reasonableness used throughout the field of law. Negligence law is pretty much entirely based on making judgments about what is reasonable. Other examples are applying statutes of limitation (when would a reasonably diligent person have discovered his claim) and materiality of information (would a reasonable investor consider it significant). Notions of common sense come into all these evaluations.Prof. Volokh could probably point out that there is a difference between these uses of reasonableness and common sense and what he is critiquing, because the former concern judgments about what a reasonable person would do or should know more so than epistemological claims based on common sense versus more rigorous modes of inquiry. That distinction isn't entirely true. (For example, should common sense have told this plaintiff that product X was defective?) But there is some truth to it.Lawyers see "common sense" asserted all the time, however, as trumping what science or other rigorous modes of inquiry tell us, such as claims that a product caused an injury, when we know that it couldn't have. "No matter what you say, I know my own body," is a common one. Sadly, expert witnesses including doctors are often the worst offenders, selling out science for "common sense" that will fool a judge and jury. Same with fields like economics: if the public had known probiotics aren't as great as X Corp claims, the price of X yogurt with probiotics would have been lower (which is pure economic bunk but sounds like economics).Other appeals to common sense are more often than not really appeals against common sense as well as science. A plaintiff who was miraculously treated with a medical device once told me in a deposition that she nevertheless was really injureed by it since it was not approved for that specific application. I thought, lady, you must be kidding; this invention gave you your life back. But her "common sense" told her (wrongly) that she still had a technical legal grievance.
LikeLike
ashot:The law does not say what a reasonably careful *person using ordinary care would or would not do under such circumstances. That is for you to decide.…by using your common sense, presumably!
LikeLike
♪♪♫♪♫Countrywide is on your side♪♪♫♪♫ I've put a new post up for your consideration.
LikeLike
Scott- Exactly! Use your common sense to determine what a person, using their common sense, would have done under such circumstance.
LikeLike
I think I like Kevin's definition of common sense.Common sense tends to be experiential, observational, and conditional. It is consistent with our experiences and observations, but is not rigorously tested.I will just point out that mainstream thinking ("common sense" or whatever) is not limited to our everyday lives. This year's Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to someone who had the sense to realize that mainstream thinking about crystal structure was not complete.Quasicrystals
LikeLike
From the article: "Following Shechtman's discovery, scientists have produced other kinds of quasicrystals in the lab and discovered naturally occurring quasicrystals in mineral samples from a Russian river. A Swedish company has also found quasicrystals in a certain form of steel, where the crystals reinforce the material like armor. Scientists are currently experimenting with using quasicrystals in different products such as frying pans and diesel engines."Bang! Man, I love scientists. Not so much the douche bags that kicked Dan Shechtman out of his research group, but he stuck to his guns and there ya go. Something cool, not particularly intuitive, that's gonna give me a better frying pan and diesel engine and probably shampoo bottle. Awesome.
LikeLike
Mike and all, didn't Einstein make some famous deprecating comment about common sense?
LikeLike
Mark:Yeah, something to the effect that common sense is the collection of all the biases you get during childhood.
LikeLike
Mark:Yeah, something to the effect that common sense is the collection of all the biases you get during childhood.
LikeLike