|
|
|
|
Death of an old friend
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair and, maybe, it was my fault.
Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.
It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a sticking plaster to a pupil - but could not inform the parents when a pupil became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses and criminals received better treatment than their victims.
Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.
He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone.
If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The death of Common Sense was reported earlier today.
In early life a notorious fraudster and confidence trickster, Common Sense suffered a series of setbacks in later life which severely damaged his credibility. His life was saved by heroic measures, including radical amputation of belief both in the Flat Earth and in the Geocentric Universe. Further problems which proved resistant to treatment included an insistence on “Intelligent Design”, and a delight in exploded urban myths (often featuring coffee, children, or both).
He spent the latter part of his life under continuous guard from the forces of logic, testability, and experience, although granted occasional “day release” to carry out supervised work in the community. It was on one of these trips that an attempt to reconcile a desire for the “Ten Commandments” to be displayed on public buildings with a belief in the separation of church and state caused the fatal rupture to his credulousness from which he expired.
Having had a number of ill-judged relationships throughout his life, including a notorious ménage a trois with Homophobia and Racism, Common Sense is survived by a large number of offspring, including Biogotry, Prejudice, and Wilful Ignorance. In latter years, Common Sense was believed to be grooming his son It Stands To Reason to take over the family business interests.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mmm, must have been a different Common Sense.
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very good, NW! I am most impressed.
I don't know much about the sketchy examples mentioned in Nigel's post (which, incidentally, was also clever -- however, I don't personally believe there is much of a difference between Common Sense and Ignorant Jumping To Conclusions, so I think he lives on), but I do know that the hot coffee case was far from as clear as Common Sense would have told you. In that case, Common Sense lied.
As I understand it, Macdonalds was repeatedly warned that their coffee was dangerously hot; they made it much hotter than their competitors because it was easier to do that than to keep it at a sensible temperature; and that Macdonalds knew perfectly well that customers were likely to drink it while distracted and hence more likely to spill it on themselves, yet did nothing about it.
http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts
Frivolous? Hardly. Certainly less frivolous than Common Sense would have your believe. Common Sense went hand in hand with his partner, Urban Legend.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raymond Chandler said "Common sense always speaks too late. Common sense is the guy who tells you you ought to have had your brakes relined last week before you smashed a front end this week. Common sense is the Monday morning quarterback who could have won the ball game if he had been on the team. But he never is. He’s high up in the stands with a flask on his hip. Common sense is the little man in a grey suit who never makes a mistake in addition. But it’s always somebody else’s money he’s adding up."
Mason Cooley remarked that "Romantics consider common sense vulgar", and Henry David Thoreau asked "Why level downward to our dullest perception always, and praise that as common sense? The commonest sense is the sense of men asleep, which they express by snoring."
However, perhaps the most heartfelt tribute was paid by his longtime adversary Oscar Wilde, who in a rueful acknowledgement of Common Sense's ubiquity and influence said "Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one’s mistakes."
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only other case quoted that I've been able to find a satisfactory reference for is the "mouthwash" one - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3D71E3DF93AA25751C0A963958260
In my day, it was Gripe Water (a sedative for infants, containing around 60% alcohol) rather than mouthwash, that was popular ...
The thing about "sticking plasters" could be based on the Axon case (eg http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1635390,00.html?gusrc=rss ), which was made much of by the anti-abortion lobby. But the earliest copy of the "Obituary" that I've found ( apparently posted Sept 2004 - http://homepage.mac.com/ajnova/iblog/C1295370661/E1837992599/ ) predates the media coverage of this, and mentions aspirin rather than sticking plaster.
I guess that most of these "examples" are actually accretions of partial fact and misremembered half-truths: it's a pity that they seem to appeal to those whose goodwill and compassion is unquestionable but who are perhaps less cynical than some of us about accuracy and sources.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tut tut, Deeej. You jumped to a conclusion. I received it in an e-mail this morning, made no claim that it was mine and did not even put my name at the end of it, I apologise for not putting it in quotation marks.
I have never done anything original in my life and certainly don't intend starting now.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common sense is undergoing character assassination. It is not common sense to say I should had my brakes relined last week; that's negligence. Common sense is saying it needs doing as soon as I find out, or better still anticipating.
It is interesting how an amusing e-mail can so easily turn into a flamer.
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, one does assume that if a post does not say "Author unknown", or "I received this in my email this morning," then the person posting wrote it. In real life, you'd usually be able to tell by the fact that someone is reading something aloud, or passing over a newspaper clipping, or something. On the internet, no-one can see if you cut and paste.
For example, if I can't make the assumption that a post's author actually wrote it, then I have no idea whether NW's rebuttal was written by him or not. I was assuming that it was -- but since he didn't put at the bottom "I wrote this!" I have no idea if he was being clever -- which would increase my estimation of him -- or simply pasting a rebuttal to that note from somewhere else, in which case it wouldn't.
I didn't mean to get all serious, but I do think it gets rather confusing if people copy things without attributing them. Apology accepted -- and my apologies for making a mountain out of a molehill!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(which is why I thought you might have written the post yourself, as it was so topical)
Nigel said,
>It is interesting how an amusing e-mail can so easily turn into a flamer.
It probably wouldn't have done if we hadn't already been having a discussion along those lines over the past few days.
The problem with common sense is that it has varying definitions, some based on good logic, others based entirely on prejudice and false logic. Saying "Oh, my common sense is good; his isn't," will never work, because by definition common sense should be the same for everyone.
Racism, homophobia, fascism -- they have all been "common sense" for some people.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me common sense is an absolute. 'His common sense' is a sloppy concept for his gift of or lack of commn sense. We aspire to (or don't) common sense and probably never achieve it.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> then I have no idea whether NW's rebuttal was written by him or not. I was assuming that it was
it was. It may have had an uncharacteristically lighthearted touch ... put that down to my current painkillers, which are making me considerably lightheaded!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel said,
>To me common sense is an absolute. 'His common sense' is a sloppy concept for his gift of or lack of commn sense. We aspire to (or don't) common sense and probably never achieve it.
Does that make "common sense" a contradiction in terms? If it's sense that's common (to everyone), shouldn't we all have it?
If it's sense that only a few have, then it's hardly common. Common sense, as far as I'm concerned, is judgement that only works when it applies to very common (another, slightly different, usage of the word -- but it also works within my definition) situations. When they are more complicated than that, it's no substitute for careful and analytical thinking.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common sense, although two words, is one concept. By parting and analysing those words you destroy the concept, particularly as common can mean, vulgar, or the opposite of rare, or communal.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel,
>Common sense, although two words, is one concept. By parting and analysing those words you destroy the concept, particularly as common can mean, vulgar, or the opposite of rare, or communal.
I destroy the concept? That's rather a harsh way of putting it. I thought I was getting closer to what the concept meant. After all, those words were obviously originally put together so that their conjunction would approximate the concept, even if they have now evolved a meaning of their own.
Common can mean vulgar because it means widespread, and hence not elite. But that is presumably not the definition used by "common sense" as common sense is not perjorative. Either of the other two meanings of "common" -- widespread, or communal -- would suggest that "common sense" is what most people accept to be the case. And "most people" are very often wrong.
I am not sure why you object to common sense sometimes being wrong. We make common sense judgements based on what information is available to us. If not all the information is available to us, we can make common sense judgements that are incorrect. Common sense is based on practical judgement -- it's about as far from an ideal as you can get.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Common Sense is indeed a unitary concept, and dictionaries define it as such. For example, the Concise Oxford Dictionary has this definition -
"Normal understanding, good practical sense in everyday affairs, general feeling (of mankind or community)."
I'd say that the third alternative is least frequently used; it is also the most literal application of the two words, implying a sense (perception) held in common.
The other two meanings are (or were) widely understood. Common sense was something that everyone was presumed to have, and everyone had a responsibility to use it. It was common sense to look where you were going, so that tripping over a cracked paving stone was nobody's fault but your own, unless it could be demonstrated that the hazard was known to, but wilfully ignored by, the authority responsible for the paving. It was common sense not to jump from a moving public transport vehicle, the transport provider would only be liable if you fell, rather than jumped - for example, as a result of sudden acceleration. If your child had an allergy to a common substance, it was common sense to tell the school, and the school would not be held responsible for the consequences if you failed to do so, as long as it had not acted in an unreasonable manner.
Society has changed a great deal in recent years. The Damages Culture has certainly killed off common sense, and rights HAVE taken precedence over responsibilities. It is no longer a defence to have acted reasonably; a defendant must have acted impeccably, even if the claimant did not. The long-established principle that a householder is entitled to use 'reasonable force' to restrain an intruder has been stretched well beyond 'common sense' limits in several cases. I'd argue that it's ridiculous to expect a middle-aged, normally-built householder confronted, in the dark, by a bulky intruder, to pause for a while to assess what is 'reasonable'. If the intruder doesn't want to risk being beaten over the head with a golf-club, he should refrain from breaking into other peoples homes.
Of course, when we turn to more complex areas, such as politics, 'common sense' becomes less reliable. For example, many Brits would argue that it's common sense to cut back on immigration. That's a topic well beyond the capabilities of common sense. The subject is hugely complex, but such action pretty certainly wouldn't be sensible, because the birth rate of the indigenous population is falling and its life-expectancy is rising; we need to maintain or even increase the active workforce in order to finance the consequences of this population change, and that can only be done by increasing legal immigration - illegal immigration contributes much less to the national economy, as so many illegal immigrants avoid paying tax.
So, with common sense defeated in the field of social interaction and unable to cope with the compexities of modern life, it is too all intents and purposes dead. It served us well in its day, but that day has, regrettably, passed. Which is why, like Deeej, I now rely on logical argument - but I shed the occasional tear for the way things used to be!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> Common Sense is indeed a unitary concept, and dictionaries define it as such. For example, the Concise Oxford Dictionary has this definition -
>
> "Normal understanding, good practical sense in everyday affairs, general feeling (of mankind or community)."
>
The first and third of these are the things that I have such problems with - the second (which severely restricts the area of applicability) is something that is scarce, but desirable. The problem lies in people who use "common sense" to pretend that the subject of discussion is covered by the second definition, where it is really covered by the first or third. This is a tactic that is beloved of religious extremists, fundamentalists and extreme rightwingers: in my view it has so discredited the notion of "common sense" that it is now not possible to use it without severely qualifying it.
I admit that my personal history will have affected my opinion: "For God's sake child, use your common sense" was a phrase my father frequently used (about my activities, and my opinions on pacifism, competitive sport, dress sense, etc) ... if he was in a good mood - otherwise the phrases were more likely to involve sentiments like "unmanly" or "why can't you just be normal" (and be accompanied by physical reinforcement).
However, common sense has a history of getting things spectacularly wrong - and, cossie, I'm afraid NOT just in "more complex areas, such as politics" . I've already made a point about the flat earth being common sense: and it is clearly common sense to realise that heavier-than-air flight is impossible. It used to be common sense to realise that small birds like cuckoos and swallows couldn't possibly fly hundreds of miles to over-winter in Africa, and they must therefore hibernate under water. And, honestly, I don't see that this is different from other common sense ideas, such as a womans place being in the home, or gay men all being effeminate and wanting to be women.
However, I would very much agree with the comments you make about the damages culture: I think that our society is failing to face up to the idea that we should all take a large measure of personal responsibility for ourselves and others, accepting that life is a chancy business. But this isn't about any mythical "common sense": it is about learning to live as adults in a statistically risky universe (and we've already discussed how ill-equipped most humans are for this). Personally, I have no desire to live in a society where I'm treated like a child - either by being wrapped in cotton wool against any possibility of injury, or by tracked and monitored so Big Nanny state knows that I haven't escaped from the nursery.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David
> I destroy the concept?That's rather a harsh way of putting it.I thought I was getting closer to what the concept meant. I am not sure why you object to common sense sometimes being wrong.We make common sense judgements based on what information is available to us. If not all the information is available to us, we can make common sense judgements that are incorrect. Common sense is based on practical judgement -- it's about as far from an ideal as you can get.<
Common sense is nothing if it is not practical. I did not call it an ideal despite the use of the word 'aspire'.
I think the tenor of the arguments in the thread has been to render common sense as idiocy. If you get a cup of hot coffee from McDonald's or anywhere else, common sense dictates it's hot and you act accordingly, ie with care. If you are about to put a plaster on a stranger, you do as they do in hospitals, you ask about an allergy first. The mouthwash incident was excess of zeal. Yes, Listerine contains alcohol, but you must be pretty hardened to drink it. The abortion question required the judgement of Solomon. If common sense become idiocy it is no longer common sense.
I don't think I have anything to add to this argument. I am just surprised at the reaction it provoked. Although it was unintentional, I'm probably quite flattered.
*****
I wrote this late last night and couldn't make it workon the MB. Now it seems to work.
NW, I think the examples you give such as a flat earth and birds' migration were born of ignorance, not common sense. I still don't understand why common sense is being so maligned.
Hugs to all
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is how the first half of the post was supposed to read:
Quote:
David
“I destroy the concept?”
You commonly means one in English. Don't take the remark personally
“That's rather a harsh way of putting it.”
It might be harsh. I've often been judged as harsh because I tend to say things in a blunt manner. That's why I generally keep out of arguments. Better to lose an argument than a friend.
“I thought I was getting closer to what the concept meant.”
I think that hole's getting deeper. We'd better stop digging.
“I am not sure why you object to common sense sometimes being wrong.”
I haven't objected to common sense sometimes being wrong. I commented that common sense is undergoing character assassination in this thread, ie being judged as worthless. At least that was my reading of it from NW's post.
“We make common sense judgements based on what information is available to us. If not all the information is available to us, we can make common sense judgements that are incorrect. Common sense is based on practical judgement -- it's about as far from an ideal as you can get.”
Common sense is nothing if it is not practical. I did not call it an ideal despite the use of the word ‘aspire’.
Unquote.
I don't know how I fouled up.
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My common sense tells me to stay out of this one;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
>
> NW, I think the examples you give such as a flat earth and birds' migration were born of ignorance, not common sense. I still don't understand why common sense is being so maligned.
My point is that common sense *is* nearly always born of ignorance, or at least is born of an unspoken and un-thought-through assumption that all relevant information is present, or that information that is not present is trivial.
So, yes, it may well be common sense that a “woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement” was just taking the piss out of a system that is rigged to support complainants. … it also may well be common sense that a corporation that has received over 700 complaints about a dangerous practice contrary to established usage in the industry, which has caused a number of customers to suffer severe burns, and defended this practice by assertions which its own research shows to be untrue, should be held largely (but not totally) responsible for a further injury.
So, yes, it may well be common sense that a teen who was “suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch” was being treated unfairly … … but it is also common sense (as the original post states) that teachers should not be attacked by parents and others for “for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children” – in this case, a repeated offence of deliberately drinking an alcoholic liquid and boasting about it to other pupils.
So, yes, it may well be common sense that a school that did not “inform the parents when a pupil became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion” was misjudging the appropriate balance between the rights of parent and child … … but it may well also be common sense that where a parent is of uncertain mental health and could be severely damaged by being told, it is not in the best interests of either parent or child for disclosure to be made.
I hope this shows that in the few cases in the original post that I have been able to track down some kind of evidence for, the matter is not nearly as straightforward as the original post suggests – and that if an oppositely-biased selection of evidence had been made, “common sense” might reach a very different view.
So, I don’t think that I’m maligning common sense. I think that an appeal to common sense is frequently used as the icing on the cake of deliberate misrepresentation and half-truths, and is specifically designed to reassure the audience that no contrary information or evidence exists or is worth bothering with. This is a favourite tactic of the right wing, and fundamentalists … it is an excellent way of exploiting the very genuine concerns of people who really do care about others and about the direction our society is taking. This serves to further an agenda of attacking any liberal initiative or view (by association with imagined, misrepresented, or misreported events).
In short, if someone asserts that something is “common sense”, they are actually asserting that you do not need to look for any further evidence … and that is a scarily dangerous thing for anyone to suggest.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel,
Hmm. I reckon I ought to reply, even though I think NW has said it better than I ever could. 
>“I am not sure why you object to common sense sometimes being wrong.” I haven't objected to common sense sometimes being wrong. I commented that common sense is undergoing character assassination in this thread, ie being judged as worthless. At least that was my reading of it from NW's post.
I would contend that common sense is indeed worthless when it is used to apply to situations that are outside the bounds of common, non-specialist knowledge, or where not all the information is known. Where all the information is known and understood, then it can lead someone to make the right decision. I don't deny that. I think, however, that a reliance on common sense politically and morally is a bad idea, for while it works in most cases, it inevitably leads to mistakes.
>Common sense is nothing if it is not practical. I did not call it an ideal despite the use of the word ‘aspire’.
Okay.
Do you think that common sense is instinctive? If so, is there a reason that we should ignore instinct -- our "programming" -- in some cases but not others?
>I've often been judged as harsh because I tend to say things in a blunt manner. That's why I generally keep out of arguments. Better to lose an argument than a friend.
I have appreciated this dicussion as it let me think more about what "common sense" means (though, to be honest, I haven't seen anything that has made me change my mind). I think many of us are inclined to be a bit blunt here (I know I am, and I apologise if it's offended anyone), but I think it's good, as it lets us be honest with each other. That's a luxury one rarely has in real life.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t accept NW’s point that common sense is nearly always born of ignorance, but we have taken up polarised positions which have become matters of opinion, not matters of logic.
I would argue that in the cases we are talking about common sense did not prevail and therefore should not become a scapegoat.
Hot coffee is hot coffee. If I spill it, that’s my fault. If someone else makes me spill it, that’s someone else’s fault, but not the fault of the coffee or the agency that provided me with the coffee.
If I continue to use mouthwash after being told not to and the consequences, that is my disobedience and my lack of common sense.
I said I could not argue the case of the teenager’s secret abortion - full stop. It just makes the sticking plaster case bizarre when they are standing side by side.
At the beginning of the post NW maligns common sense, then later denies it. However, what he does do, is argue that the right and fundamentalists use common sense as a weapon against liberal initiatives. All he does there is state his political position and while I am sure it happens out of ignorance, I am also sure it is done the other way round. Common sense is not a political tool and it not helpful to politicise it.
If common sense is used as the icing on the cake of deliberate misrepresentation and half truths, then we must be intellectually honest enough to distinguish between the weasel words ‘common sense’ (let’s call that propaganda) and the abstract notion of common sense. Even if someone asserts that something is common sense, that does not make it common sense. If I assert that a spade is a shovel, it still remains a spade and is not a shovel. It is scarily dangerous when people are not intellectually sharp enough to distinguish. The point of common sense is that it is acceptable without further investigation. Once you have to investigate it, it is no longer common sense.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> At the beginning of the post NW maligns common sense, then later denies it. However, what he does do, is argue that the right and fundamentalists use common sense as a weapon against liberal initiatives. All he does there is state his political position and while I am sure it happens out of ignorance, I am also sure it is done the other way round. Common sense is not a political tool and it not helpful to politicise it.
>
Nigel
you raise a very interesting point. I hope that you won't take this as any kind of personal attack (it certainly isn't intended as such) - I hope that the discussion has moved on sufficiently from that.
I would agree that it is not only the extreme right and fundamentalists that have historically used appeal to common sense in this political way - "large state" socialists have also done so (although there are rather few of these left any more - a bit of an endangered species nowadays, which is all to the good in my view).
However, I would say that the use of appeals to common sense to dissuade the audience from a critical evaluation is in my experience typical of those who have a belief in authority (of the state, the Holy Writ, or whatever) It is really not typical of left/libertarian, anarcho-syndicalist, or many kinds of Social Democrat material - simply because those who take an individualist / libertarian approach are unlikely to take anything at all on trust! (We may also have such a resistance to any form of authority as to be incapable of banding together to form an effective political force - that is another matter entirely).
Having said all of which, of course I use some level of "common sense" in my everyday life (although I hope I do so in an explicit awareness of the limitations): I refer to "sunset" although the sun doesn't move but the earth does. To say "horizon-up" would be peverse. Incidentally, has anyone else ever stood on a high rock watching the "sun set" and really truly tried to feel it as the earth turning and the horizon creeping up the field of view ? It is an interesting experiment in reconciling what we emotionally feel (sun set) against what we intellectually know (earth rotates) - if one that is liable to lead to vertigo and loss of balance!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David
Certainly no hard feelings. In a masochistic way I enjoy the jousting.
As applied to people, some have common sense, some don't. Some people can sing, some can't. However, we seem to be in the realm of a general or communal common sense and this is where the debate comes in, difficult because we are arguing from the particular to the general.
I think my get out is that when common sense goes wrong it was not common sense in the first place. I doubt whether this is a satisfying answer.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel,
>I think my get out is that when common sense goes wrong it was not common sense in the first place.
Aha! That's where our definitions differ. There's no such requirement as far as I'm concerned -- which is why I mistrust it, because common sense can produce different actions and results in different people. In that case it takes a intelligent and impartial analysis to decide which one was actually the "common sense" solution. And the necessity of using a scientific approach to demonstrate the validity of a decision that is supposed to be intuitive just goes to show how flawed such an approach is.
Common sense is not bad when one has to make a split second decision -- it may produce the wrong result, but at least one did one's best at the time -- but it has no place in the legal system. Which is why many "frivolous" lawsuits make it through the system -- because they aren't actually frivolous when you look at the facts.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, NW.
First of all I take none of this personally and I am pleased to be forced to use the little grey cells. If I did take it personally I would go off into a corner in a sulk and not reply. (At some stage this thread must stop and if I didn't have the last word that wouldn't mean I was in sulk.)
I was interested in your concept of the earth rotating against sunset. I did it in a different way. Last June I took off from Vancouver airport to fly to London. I left at midnight in the dark. In less than two hours we were north of the Arctic Circle in 24 hours of daylight. With the help of the onscreen route that gave a very good impression of the earth's rotation compared with a constantly fixed sun.
I am in general agreement with the content of your third paragraph. I am not sure that it concerns what I understand is common sense, but I don't think I can say any more on the subject. We have to appreciate that we each have a different concept of common sense.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isnt common sense the ability to look at something and figure the way its supposed to work, without instructions. You look at a nail and a hammer. Common sense tell you how to strike the nail with the hammer. But, what do I know, Im just the kid whose nosy.;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... he said, quickly ducking below the parapet!
I do think that the thread has become seriously over-analytical.
First of all, the original obituary was clearly meant to be humorous, and humour isn't constrained by hard fact - the overstatements were analogous to poetic licence.
Secondly, 'common sense' is not the same as 'received wisdom'. It wasn't common sense to believe in a flat earth; it was the prevailing scientific explanation of our situation. For example, the Greeks, who were no slouches intellectually, firmly believed that the world was 'flat'. When Alexander the Great's procession of conquest took him as far as what is now Pakistan, but a return Eastwards became a logistic necessity, he was bitterly disappointed that he had not been able to go beyond the mountains of the Hindu Kush, because the Greeks believed that from those mountains it was possible to see the end of the Earth. The other quasi-scientific examples quoted are also examples of received wisdom.
Thirdly, appeals to 'common sense' in support of religious or political argument are as spurious as appeals to scientific fact. It isn't the concept which is at fault, any more than it is the fault of science that its conclusions are open to misrepresentation in the same way.
Common sense is really a very simple thing. Brian has a very valid point when he suggests that it includes the ability to reason out simple processes without instruction. It includes looking both ways before trying to cross the road. It includes not striking a match or using an electrical switch if there is a smell of gas. It includes not flying a kite near overhead powerlines. The list is almost endless. Common sense does survive, albeit in a rather emaciated form, but it has been under sustained attack for years as social mores have moved towards self-interest and away from personal responsibility. Even in the spilt coffee case, I would suggest that common sense DID emerge badly bruised. Coffee is made from boiling water, and common sense suggests that freshly-made coffee should be treated with respect for that reason. The claim for damages was successful only because it was possible to show that McDonalds had been aware that a risk existed but had failed to address that risk. And, let's face it, this was really a situation crying out fot consumer legislation to prohibit the sale of liquids for immediate consumption at a temperature in excess of a specified level. THAT would be common sense, but so far as I am aware, it hasn't happened!
And finally (do I hear sighs of relief?), the business about sunset. Nothing at all to do with common sense, I'd argue. We know perfectly well that the Earth rotates, but in consequence of that rotation the sun rises and falls (sets) in relation to our horizon. That's an indisputable fact, and fully justifies the use of the terms 'sunrise' and 'sunset'.
NW, I do appreciate that the experiences of your childhood and youth may have created an aversion to 'common sense', but for whatever reason I think you are exporting the concept to places where it didn't ought to be! As regards Deeej, I think he's trying to secure his position as chief pedant following a recent challenge in another thread by JFR, the previous incumbent!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I am concerned this thread has now been done to death and I am retreating to a darkened room to lie down with a dampened cloth across my brow.
Thanks everyone
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
>
> First of all, the original obituary was clearly meant to be humorous, and humour isn't constrained by hard fact - the overstatements were analogous to poetic licence.
Unusually for me, I replied in (I hope) the same vein. But I see the misrepresentations as deliberate propaganda not poetic licence (and the misrepresentations were duely propagated - wonderful thing, the internet!).
>
> Common sense is really a very simple thing. Brian has a very valid point when he suggests that it includes the ability to reason out simple processes without instruction. It includes looking both ways before trying to cross the road. It includes not striking a match or using an electrical switch if there is a smell of gas. It includes not flying a kite near overhead powerlines. The list is almost endless.
OK, I'm happy with the point Brian makes about the hammer - in fact, I'm happy with all of the above. But these are *all* culturally-specific. None of them are obvious or common sense to someone from a very different background (I am thinking specifically of a friend of mine from francophone rural Rwanda, who came to the UK when she was in her mid-twenties).
And that is the basis of my argument: "common sense" relies on an unexamined set of shared assumptions and experiences (a cultural matrix). To assert that something is "common sense" is to affirm a subset of those shared assumptions.
I don't deny that "common sense" (as Brian sees it) exists, or that it is in many situations useful. I do enough DIY (plumbing, woodwork, electrics etc) to know what it's worth. BUT as soon as "common sense" stops being something a person uses, and starts being something that they comment on in others, it is necessarily at least partly a comment on shared cultural background and experience.
*That* is why "common sense" should be kept locked away, and taken out only in privacy, on a one-on-one basis. Like sex toys, sharing it can be dangerous and lead to unwanted complications.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie said,
>For example, the Greeks, who were no slouches intellectually, firmly believed that the world was 'flat'.
Who believed it?
That's about as valid as saying,
"For example, the early 21st Century Americans, who were no slouches intellectually, firmly believed that the world had been made a mere 7000 years earlier."
See, for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
Alexander the Great lived from 356-323 BC.
i. Pythagoras had been suggesting a spherical Earth in the 6th century BC.
ii. Plato (427-347 BC) taught his students that the world was round.
Aristotle, Alexander's teacher, no less, was firmly of the belief that the world was round, and even provided evidence to prove it:
* Ships receding over the horizon disappear hull-first;
* Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
* The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.
(Source: Wikipedia)
Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth in 240 BC.
Then, of course, there is Ptolemy (90-168), who, while living a while after Alexander, drew maps and assigned latitude and longditude to the Earth.
Also of interest (while not Greek) is the Elder Pliny's (23-79) natural history:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137&query=head%3D%2367
An unqualified statement of that type isn't helpful, Cossie! It seems to be designed so that we can look back and say, "Ah, well, we must be better than [insert culture here] because at least we know the Earth is round."
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Brian, common sense is the nagging little voice that tells you to leave well alone less you hit your thumb with the hammer! ;-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I intended to respond to Deeej's post last night, but the suggestions that I should be faulted induced me to collapse, foaming at the mouth, in a fit from which I have just recovered after the transfusion of half-a-bottle of malt whisky!
Let me admit right away that I didn't dig out an encyclopedia before using flat earth and the Greeks as an illustration of received wisdom; the bit about Alexander had simply stuck in my memory. But I cannot accept that the Greeks can in any way be compared to the American Christian Fundamentalists. The Greeks laid the foundations of classical education. They were constantly experimenting, researching, philosophising and generally pushing the envelope of knowledge. Within their limitations, they adopted scientific method. They scrupulously recorded information gleaned from travellers who had visited other lands. They had a whole Pantheon of Gods, but - significantly - no supposedly infallible text purporting to direct their lives. They had Oracles, from which they believed that the will of the Gods could be discovered, but their Gods fitted in to the world as they knew it, and they had an insatiable desire to discover more about that world. It is inconceivable that, had they been presented with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, they would have denied its validity on purely religious grounds. If the Greeks believed that the Earth was 'flat', it was because the best evidence available to them led to that conclusion - which of course is a perfect example of received wisdom.
So what did the Greeks think about the Earth? Within a century of Alexander's death in 323, the spherical Earth theory was generally accepted, but in Alexander's day things were much less clear-cut. The weakness of Wikipedia, or indeed any relatively condensed encyclopedia, is that it homes in only on the important issues. In relation to the nature of the Earth, it quotes Pythagoras, but Pythagoras himself left no writings; all we know of him comes to us from the later and sometimes contradictory writings of others. The likelihood is that his vision of the earth was a postulation rather than a theory, and like many of Pythagoras' ideas (most famously, the need to rigorously abstain from eating beans!) it was not widely accepted by the philosophical establishment of the day.
Pythagoras established a mystic cult centred upon Croton in Southern Italy; the Pythagoreans appear to have followed a rule of life, not merely a philosophy. The cult was eventually suppressed, but not before Plato had encountered the Pythagoreans on his travels, during his judicious absence from Athens following the trial and execution of Socrates, of whom he had been a prominent admirer. Plato was something of a Da Vinci among philosophers, covering an immense range. He may well have adopted the Pythagorean view that the Earth was, or might be, spherical. I tried Wikipedia and all of my own encyclopedias, but a quick read of the articles under Plato revealed no mention of his views on the subjct. No doubt it's there, somewhere among his writings, but it was essentially peripheral to the main thrust of his teaching.
So to Aristotle, who had studied under Plato and had taught for a while at Plato's Academy. He was appointed as Alexander's tutor in 342 and acted in that capacity for just under three years. He clearly had a major influence upon Alexander, who was accompanied by philsophers throughout his epic journey, but he did not, apparently, convince Alexander thar the world was a sphere. Indeed, there are specific references in the records of Alexander's exploits that Aristotle believed that the world was essentially a large island surrounded by the Southern (ie Indian) Ocean. Aristotle is also said to have believed that India (by which the Greeks meant modern Pakistan) was a 'small triangular promontory' extending into that ocean. Both of these beliefs could be reconciled with either a spherical or a 'flat' Earth, but Alexander and his accompanying philosophers seem to have tended to the latter view.
It is certain that Aristotle ultimately concluded that the Earth was probably spherical, but his views seem to have been at best ambiguous during his period as Alexander's tutor. It was not until five years after that tutoring ended that Aristotle returned to Athens to found the Peripatetic School of Philosophy (the Lyceum) upon which his reputation is based.
In short, therefore, when Alexander was on his travels the 'Spherical Earth' theory was not novel, but it was not widely accepted until several years after his death.
All of my references to Alexander are gleaned from the biography 'Alexander the Great: Man and God', written by Professor Ian Worthington and published by Pearson Longman in 2004. That's where the bit stuck in my memory originally came from, too!
And finally - as is probably obvious by now! - my original statement was definitely not designed to allow us to feel smug about an earlier culture. It was really quite the reverse, an acknowledgement of the logical capabilities of Greek philosophy. Knowledge is a cumulative thing - we simply have the advantage of an extra 2300 years of accumulation.
I think that calls for another transfusion of malt!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie,
>Let me admit right away that I didn't dig out an encyclopedia before using flat earth and the Greeks as an illustration of received wisdom; the bit about Alexander had simply stuck in my memory. But I cannot accept that the Greeks can in any way be compared to the American Christian Fundamentalists.
Nor can I. That is why I said calling all Greeks flat-earthers was about as valid as calling all Americans fundamentalists -- utterly ludicrous, but something, perhaps, that future historians could get mixed up about. The comparison goes no further than that.
I have nothing but respect for Greek culture, and if I had lived in that age I would have loved to have lived in Athens during Alexander's time. (Of course, it's easy to say that in retrospect -- maybe it's better to say: I'd have loved to have lived there if I'd been a moderately wealthy free man. Hmm.)
I agree that the flatness of the Earth may not have been clear-cut at the time -- but, as you know, I'm very pedantic, and I took exception to this sentence:
>For example, the Greeks, who were no slouches intellectually, firmly believed that the world was 'flat'.
Unqualified, it just seemed a bit too pat, as I knew perfectly well that not all the Greeks thought this at all.
I hope you enjoyed your whisky!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Having at one stage in my varied career qualified as a teacher, my instinct is to demand that you write out one thousand times 'I must try to be less pedantic in future' - and e-mail the result to me by 9.00.am. BST tomorrow! I would of course use up-to-the-minute scanning techniques to ensure that the submission was genuinely handwritten! (Btw, have a few more exclamation marks on approval !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - no obligation to purchase, of course.)
What am I to do? I am already maligned in some quarters for the length of my posts - must I make them longer yet to avoid incurring your wrath?
Alas! I must yet again seek solace in a bottle of Malt!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
getting kinda heavy on the malt aint cha Grandfather?
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
.... I gotta keep thish whippershnapper Deeesh in check ... (Hic!) ...
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: The Death of an Old Friend 
) And y'all even wax long, if not poetic, about as simple subjects as common sense! I'm keeping mine short for reader's sake. But the long posts are interesting if time & patience allows for it.. 
I sometimes wish for Cliff Notes to a few.. They just dont get read when I'm hurried.. 
