|
Epiphileon |
|
Advanced Member |
| School Bus Driver |
| Nature, function, utilization, and potential development of consciousness |
| Male |
|
|
|
Sunday, March 22, 2009 |
|
Sunday, September 23, 2018 10:07:25 AM |
4,053
[0.45% of all post / 1.17 posts per day] |
|
Here's a pretty good commentary on common sense I found when looking for current literature on the issue.
Common Sense Is Neither Common nor Sense
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
FounDit wrote:“Common Sense” is nothing more than intelligence guided by experience.
Technically this definition cannot stand as it is too close to the definition of intelligence. I remember learning the most base definition of intelligence is that an organism which modifies its behavior on the basis of experience demonstrates intelligence. TFD defines it, "1. The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge:..." I think your definition may be closer to wisdom with maybe only a bit more description. Pardon me FounDit but this whole notion of common sense has been a pet peeve of mine since I first strongly objected to the notion that it did not exist when my psychometrics professor made that claim/challenge in a "Psychological Tests: Structure and Construction" class.
In searching for current views on the issue I came across what may be the best definition I've seen yet. Acutally, and somewhat surprising for me as it is from Psychology Today (a source I usually find rather weak), I would recommend the article that quote is from.
FounDit wrote:This is the result of selfishness. In the case of politicians, it results from placing selfish desires above what is good for those they allegedly represent. When that happens, laws and regulations are crafted for personal enrichment under the guise of doing good for the people, but which in reality results in social damage. Power corrupts, and that’s why it is important to be very careful to whom we give power. Some can wield it for the benefit of others, but human nature will always move the compass needle back toward the self eventually. And it is selfishness that causes the individual to proclaim that what they think is just "common sense", simply because they believe it. But for it to be truly "common sense", it must be true for everyone.
In principle I agree with this; however, I think the context is wrong, rather than demonstrating individual selfishness, I think what is at work is a larger, more powerful, and far more insidious dynamic, that alluded to in my response that refers to robber barons.
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
Hope wrote:Why do humans not use facts, heed warnings, and even learn from past mistakes or have short term memory problems about important happenings that greatly affected them or their ancestors? Or use common sense to prevent disasters? I put this psychology thread into the Science sub forum.
First example - Ten years after the economic crash in the US that caused a global disaster, has US Congress learned anything? It appears not.
In this example, I would assert it has far less to do with something that might be called common sense, and far more to do with the machinations of the 1%. I haven't expounded on this notion very much here, partly because it sounds too much like an alarmist conspiracy theory, and partly because even though I highly suspect the validity of the notion, I haven't investigated it sufficiently to assert it authoritatively. This second part is most likely due to just not wanting to know for sure, and the reasons for that are complex, But, you might ask, what the hell is he going on about?
I believe* that, most likely throughout all of history, perhaps since the time of "The Great Pirates", but definitely since the time of the American Industrialists of the late 19th century, that there has been an effort to consolidate wealth and power into the hands of the few.
There is an interesting article at Wikipedia, "Robber Baron (Industrialist)" that discusses some attempts to describe this phenomenon in American history.
I think the phenomenon is real but far more insidious in its modern manifestation. Whether a concerted cooperative effort or just an evolution of strategies on the part of the, so-called, 1%, I believe the problem is real, and also suspect that there is nothing that will be, or even can be, done about it. Everything that I know about coevolutionary processes, and the extrapolation of the current human condition, is far better well known by those at the top. They have actually been investing huge amounts of money into studying all aspects of the human condition, as well as how to manipulate people. Where we are today in the USA is no accident. Even if there were such a thing as common sense, it would be no defense against such informed machinations.
Hope wrote:Third example: humans know from the past the devastation that can happen and can use common sense to get out of the path of monster storms, so why do some stay in spite of warnings and offers of help to get out, and end up losing their lives?
A prime example of why common sense does not actually exist.
*Ach! There it be! One of the very few things I believe without having an examined; solid, rational, evidential basis for. I know there are a few of these, but I do try to keep them to a minimum.
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
Sorry Hope, I don't mean to terminate the thread, and I promise to get around to reading the actual content. You may recall however that part of my major at university was in psychometrics, and the issue of common sense was something of a big deal and a conundrum at the same time. As you say everyone thinks they have it, but when you go looking for the common aspect of it, it disappears. Psychometric instructors in fact, use it to combat students getting "we can measure anything" syndrome by tasking them to come up with even a preliminary instrument that has a chance of resulting in any kind of cohesive, reliable and valid score across a population level sampling. Generations of aspiring psychometricians have tried and failed to come up with one, well at least through the '80s which was when I was current in the field.
I promise though I'll get back to the point of your OP as soon as I can.
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
High Hope ,
Haven't had time to read your post yet; however, I must admit to being compelled to point out that as far as anyone has been able to determine, common sense does not exist. It is a folk tale.
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
FounDit wrote:Ultimately, Epiphileon presents what may be the best description of the thinking of those of you who are believers when he says, twice, "...if there is even the remotest chance that our contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere is causing warming, considering the consequences, we should be highly motivated to curb it."
Is this how we should make law — on the fear of "What If"? If we made all our laws and regulations this way, on the fear that something bad might happen, even the remotest chance it might, I doubt we would all be able to leave our caves, because we certainly wouldn't be allowed to build houses with all the things in it that can kill us.
You all may be willing to live you lives in the "Fear of What If", but I choose not to.
First of all FounDit you should know I am not "a believer" in anything. In any argument, I strive to evaluate the evidence and rational, then adopt the position that is best supported.
Second I would go back to my comparison to any other scientific conclusion like cigarette smoking raises the risk of lung cancer. Do we have absolute proof that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No, we do not. Are there cases of people smoking nearly their entire lifetimes and not contracting cancer? Yes, there are. Have we wisely enacted laws on the basis of the lung cancer/smoking correlation? Yes we have.
Third you quoted me out of context, the first phrase of that sentence is critical to my point, "We most certainly should be seeking to lessen the amount of pollution we dump into the atmosphere..."
Forth there is the question, what are the benefits of seeking alternative energy sources? There are a number of them; however, the most attractive to me is that it forces development of new technologies. There is also the fact that if we ever get over our current stupidity and get serious about the space program to the point of colonizing space, we will need highly efficient, non-fossil fueled energy.
Then we get back to my first point. I've been pretty busy lately and it has taken me a while to read some of the supporting information that has been provided. Like I said earlier, "I have yet to check out the links you (Ruth) provided and will certainly do so. I am not current on this debate..."
So I have now checked out the article at "The Union of Concerned Scientists" site, and it appears to me to have a considerable amount of well-supported evidence. It doesn't really matter what they call themselves it is a matter of evidence. I checked out many of the links in that article, links within those links, and conducted searches for relevant claims to obtain independent sources. The following quotes from the article seem to be well supported.
UCS Article wrote:Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have been taken continuously since the late 1950s. The data show that CO2 levels have steadily increased every year. In 2017, they were 28 percent higher than in 1959, the year CO2 measurements began at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. What's more, scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at least any point in the last 800,000 years ago.
Quote:Scientists can conclusively identify that human activity is responsible for the observed increase in CO2. How? The carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, natural gas, and oil has a unique chemical “fingerprint" — and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere bears that signature
Can you provide any evidence that directly contradicts this point? Yes natural sources of CO2 are far greater than human-caused sources; however, according to the evidence in support of anthropogenic effect our contribution is sufficiently significant to disrupt the normal balance and cause warming. What is the direct evidential contradiction of this point?
So show me the evidence that I may be convinced to change my mind if that is what the evidence indicates needs to happen. Because that is how I operate, not on the basis of how I may feel about an issue, or on the basis of who may claim it is true but, what is the evidence and the rationale that leads to the interpretation of that evidence.
I haven't done an exhaustive amount of research on this issue, nothing like some of the other notions I've brought here for validity testing, so the score I give this on my personal conviction scale is still only about a 7 out of 10. This contrasts with other positions I've maintained here like freewill, and the notion of personal interactive deities, on those the score is far closer to 10, on the 10 point scale.
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
FounDit wrote:And yes, I want absolute proof before we run off half-cocked and make laws that affect all of us before we know what we’re doing.
You're going to have to back off of this one FounDit, that is a flat out impossibility.
I've given my intellectual assent to the hypothesis of both climate change, and the anthropogenic contribution to it. Why? Because it is the consensus of the scientific community, and I have seen no direct evidence to the contrary, nor valid rebuttal of the evidence in support of the hypothesis. I also give my intellectual assent to other scientific conclusions such as cigarette smoking significantly raises the risk of lung cancer.
I also do not see the sense in not making the changes to our behavior that the hypothesis suggests. We most certainly should be seeking to lessen the amount of pollution we dump into the atmosphere, and if there is even the remotest chance that our contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere is causing warming, considering the consequences, we should be highly motivated to curb it.
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
RuthP wrote:I believe Grammarly is mistaking "Leon" for a signature. It is trying to make this into the closing of a letter.
LOL, you're probably right about that, good call.
RuthP wrote:I will also note I've never found any grammar checker to be much help. Most of the suggestions are in error, and those that may be correct are usually better elucidated by searching the issue and reading at length.
Well of course Ruth, those who don't need much help, wouldn't find them much help. I'm running it on a test basis right now and may come to the same conclusion. I am finding it interesting though, I always wondered how such things might work. I have been rather surprised that the only thing it has picked on me about so far has been comma placement. Oh and now the occasional misspelling that is actually a word. It knew "thing" in the last sentence should not have been "think". That seems impressive to me.
I do ignore probably about half its recommendations, particularly after Romany's explanation above. For example, it wanted me to commatize one of my above sentences as "Well, of course, Ruth those..." that just seems awkward to me and not how I'd say it conversationally. Oh and of course it doesn't recognize flagrant poetic license, and is having a fit over "commatize".
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
Thanks Rom, that clears it up for me. Here's another example from another post, and it is pointing out the same error here. I pretty sure that putting the comma after the person's name I am thanking is the place to put it and Grammarly's algorithms just don't take that into account.
Thanks very much Leon, that is very informative.
Grammarly's Error Card wrote:much,
It appears that you are missing a punctuation mark after the interjection Thanks very much. Consider adding a comma.
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
Thanks very much Leon, that is very informative.
Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|