Sunday, April 19, 2009

Uncommon Sense about Common Sense

At one time or another, you have referred to some idea or behavior as common sense, most likely in reference to an instance in which you personally observed a breach of it. If you haven't done this, you have directly witnessed someone else doing it. Commons sense is a widely accepted and often applied concept to many of the ideas and behaviors we perform and encounter on a daily basis. But have you ever actually thought about the concept of common sense? Who decides what ideas or behaviors fit into this category and on what grounds? Most importantly, if common sense is as common as it claims to be, why are breaches of it so prolific? There are no good answers to these questions because common sense is a concept that is fatally flawed at its most basic level.

What is common sense? Dictionary.com suggests that common sense is a "sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training or the like; normal native intelligence." This definition tells us two important things. 1) Common sense refers to knowledge or behavior that is native and normal. These ideas and behaviors seems to blatantly obvious that it is shocking to see someone act contrary to it. 2) Common sense refers to ideas and behaviors that are not taught, but instinctual. Due to this, the implication is that this set of knowledge and behaviors is obligatory upon any rational being. The universality and absolutivity with which common sense then applies to humanity becomes problematic when we consider how often we see people act contrary to common sense.

I think this problem arises from the fact that the modern understanding of common sense refers to things that are not truly instinctual, but rather to things that we think should be instinctual but actually must be learned. Take breathing for example. Knowing to breath is instinctual whereas knowing not to breath under water must be learned. Breathing does not constitute something that we would believe to be common sense. However, knowing you can't breath under water is placed in the common sense category. Why is this? It is because we create a category of ideas and behaviors based on observations of what ideas work best and what behaviors are the most appropriate reactions to specific stimuli (i.e. "sound practical judgement"). However, the fact that there are breaches of our prerceived common sense categories suggest that there are those who either haven't come to the same conclusion or haven't had the opportunity to react to those stimuli and thus develop a preferred/best response. Therefore, since common sense appears so subjective, can it actually claim true "commonness?"

Two other aspects of common sense further confirm the problematic nature of "common sense":

1 - It is practically impossible to measure how "common"various tenants of common sense actually are. People don't want to appear devoid of common sense themselves. Therefore, when they are questioned as to whether something is common sense, they will reply (both vocally and mentally) "of course it is" unless the matter at hand is so blatantly not common sensicle that they do not risk ridicule for disagreeing. Even thought they may have not previously considered a certain matter common sense, they will now amend their personal "common sense" category to include this matter in order to appear as being in compliance with widespread common sense.

2) Common sense is culturally and chronologically contextualized, suggesting it is more often based on subjective than objective substance. Take hand washing for example. In 21st century America, it is common sense to wash one's hands after using the restroom and before eating. 200 years ago, this was not necessarily the case. Today while it is common sense in America, it is not so in many disease plaugued areas of Africa and Asia. This, once again, begs the question of how "common" common sense actually is.

In conclusion, common sense is a fatally flawed concept because it is not true to what it claims to be. Both the name and the general understanding of common sense suggests that it pertains to ideas and behaviors that everyone should know. The fact that the ideas and behaviors that we classify as "common sense" must be learned demonstrates that they cannot tuely be considered "common." Rather, common sense entities are simply a set of ideas and behaviors that provide a disguised opportunity for condescension by those who are privileged to have learned about those entities against those who haven't. Common sense thrives on relativity and social contextualization and thus cannot claim to be common at all. In all honesty, the only things actually worthy to fit into a category claiming commonness go by another name - instinct.

5 comments:

B-Ho said...

I think I'm getting dumber. This is the second week that I read the theory and just get lost in the complicated wording and big words. This stuff was a breeze in college.

I think there's a flaw in this argument. The flaw is in the assumption that common sense must apply to all people.

The word "common," as defined by Merriam Webster, is "(1)of or relating to a community at large; (2)belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all members of a group; (3)occurring or appearing frequently"

Note that while one of these definitions includes "all members of a group," it is not implied that "common" refers to all people or all things. Common is not synonymous with universality.

The problem with common sense, as stated in this argument, is that it appears to be breached frequently, and thus must not be as common as we think. But should we really be surprised that its breached? It's only common, after all, not universal.

To respond to your first 2 questions:

"Who decides what ideas or behaviors fit into this category and on what grounds?" - I don't think you can identify any one person who makes the decision. But in any given society or culture in which a bit of knowledge is widely known, it is considered common, an thus grouped into the category. On what grounds? Well, its commonly (but not universally) known.

"Why are breaches of it so prolific." - I would argue that they're not as prolific as we think, and perhaps only so when referring to society, culture, or time period in which the given bit of knowledge is or was not widely known, and thus not common, at the time.

One last note:

You say "...common sense entities are simply a set of ideas and behaviors that provide a disguised opportunity for condescension by those who are privileged to have learned about those entities against those who haven't."

Is it really that simple? Could you provide some more support for this claim?

The problem with common sense, as articulated in this argument, doesn't lie in its fundamental meaning, but instead in how the concept is used and understood. I don't think common sense is flawed when understood and used in the proper context.

My brain is about to explode.

Chad said...

i have many thoughts, but i must more thoroughly think them out before I respond, lest I say something un-commonsensical and be ridiculed.

Brent Woodcox said...

First, I disagree although I think you are on the right track. I used to always get into debates with an old girlfriend about politics. She would give me some Republican talking point about taxes or immigration or the ineffectiveness of gun control policies, and just because I'm a jerk, I would say, "Well, how do you know that?" She would always respond, "It's common sense." I would tell her that if all the things that she believed were "common sense" were actually common sense then we wouldn't need elections or a government because everyone would agree on everything. (BTW, the more I comment on this blog, the more I realize why none of my relationships work out.)

Common sense can't be everything but it is also not nothing. Not touching a hot stove is common sense. Why? Because all you need to know if that stoves are hot and hot things burn you. It's not instinct because if you've never been around a stove or felt something hot, you wouldn't know it. But everyone should learn and accept this fact.

One further unrelated point. Please no one ever use the phrase "begs the question" ever again on this blog. It drives me crazy because it is almost always used incorrectly. "Begging the question" is an unfortunate legal term of art that has somehow hit the mainstream pop culture equivalent of speech and debate. An argument that "begs the question" really only assumes the question that is being presented. (i.e. How can we know that the Bible is true? Because it says so in the Bible.) When you say an argument "begs the question," you are actually asserting that the argument contains a logical fallacy more commonly known as a circular argument. An argument does not "beg the question" simply because you can come up with a question to ask after asserting your premise. End of lesson.

(Sorry. That is really just a pet peeve of mine. I take logical fallacies very seriously. I know it's weird.)

Clayton Greene said...

two things.

"sound practical judgment" is common sense. The ability to arrive at an appropriate conclusion given certain set of information and circumstances.
Let's use Brent's hot stove example. If a child could sense danger in a stove burner without prior warning and would not touch it, that would be an instinct. If the child was given the information about the hot stove and then reasoned that he should not touch it because he deduced that it could harm him using the given information, that is common sense.

I feel the issue lies in the availability of information and the trust you place in the truth of that information.

If that child is warned and given the appropriate information by his parent to beware of the hot stove but does not make the connection and still touches the stove one of two things is going wrong. Either the child does not have the ability of "sound practical judgment" (common sense). OR he doesn't understand or believe the information that has been given. If after one encounter with that hot stove the child doesn't touch the stove again he has grown to believe the information and applied his common sense.

Common Sense: accepting accurate information and applying it to daily circumstances in a way that is logical and accurate.

Chad said...

the fact that most people can recognize a breach of common sense proves that it exist. you can't identify something that doesn't exist. i will use two examples. please, use your imagination:

Guy 1: Hey look at that Dipolufga!
Guy 2: That isn't real. Your pointing at air.

A better example: I just made a grilled cheese sandwhich. Whilst washing the frying pan out with cool water, I wondered if it was cool to the touch yet. I touched it. It was still hot. I said, "I am a moron." Why am I a moron? Because I have common sense, yet refused to heed it. This is a true story by the way.

CONCLUSION: Common sense exists. Dipolufgas do not.