11–20 of 44 posts
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesundes_Volksempfinden
(Sorry, I couldn't find a relevant wikipedia article about it in English.)
"Will that lion eat me? How should I construct a study to AAAAAhhhh!!!"
In common use the term is also used to refer to intuition, which is something else. Intuition is also a bit of a sloppy term but mostly reveals to massively parallel so-called "right brain" modes of cognition that rely heavily on huge scale pattern recognition instead of linear paths of logic.
The phrase common sense is awful, as @robert_tweed says, it is the opposite of a considered opinion. In politics, however, this idea is particularly egregious, as the article elucidates. If you're wrong about a scientific theory or a computer program, you can tell well enough by testing the things. If you're wrong in politics, it is extremely difficult to obtain empirical evidence that this is the case. That is not t…
It's much more useful than you seem to think it is.
Look at priming. It was a recent academic fad, Malcolm Gladwell included a big section on it in "Blink". The idea that you could influence people to walk more slowly by making them read a list of words associated with old age defied common sense. Surely someone would have noticed this effect before.
And the result was that the common sensers were right. Key priming studies turned out to be outright fraud. The rest weren't repeatable.
Not sure about the UK, but in my neck of the woods here in the US, "common sense" refers to not being physically reckless, especially toward others. I understand that politicians like to co-opt terminology for themselves. Let's blame the politicians, not 'proper' vocabulary.
The term "common sense" is a pet hate of mine. Considered objectively, it's the opposite of empiricism. It's what happens when you jump to the most obvious conclusion, regardless of whether or not it's the right one. It's the intellectual equivalent of vigilante justice.
> Considered objectively, it's the opposite of empiricism. It's not. Because we call it a sense, it might have nothing to do empirical senses. It has to do with what we believe about the world, including right and wrong. Common sense can be very well justified (the justification being outhere, although not all are aware of it), or it might be something seen on TV or read on HN. Perhaps it's fair to say that it's the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Considered objectively, it's the opposite of empiricism. It's not. Because we call it a sense, it might have nothing to do empirical senses. It has to do with what we believe about the world, including right and wrong. Common sense can be very well justified (the justification being outhere, although not all are aware of it), or it might be something seen on TV or read on HN. Perhaps it's fair to say that it's the…
Am I reading this wrong, or is cristianpascu basically saying he miss the good old days before minorities had rights?
Don't always look at things thru a western point of view or experience. Lots of themes which exist in western culture actually also exist elsewhere.
The term "common sense" is a pet hate of mine. Considered objectively, it's the opposite of empiricism. It's what happens when you jump to the most obvious conclusion, regardless of whether or not it's the right one. It's the intellectual equivalent of vigilante justice.
He noted that animals and humans share the same 5 perceptual senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch. And animals are also able to make distinctions combining one or more of these senses just as humans do.. (e.g., white and sweet = yum, compared to white and salty = yuck).
Animal rationality has no place in Aristotelian philosophy so the common sense was posited as that facility that both humans and animals share that unite multiple perceptual sensations into self-evident truths that are not just simple facts but also not requiring logic or rational consideration / synthesis.
The phrase common sense is awful, as @robert_tweed says, it is the opposite of a considered opinion. In politics, however, this idea is particularly egregious, as the article elucidates. If you're wrong about a scientific theory or a computer program, you can tell well enough by testing the things. If you're wrong in politics, it is extremely difficult to obtain empirical evidence that this is the case. That is not t…
Interesting you mention that. The Lib Dems didn't do the common sense thing: ditch their leader. Even after a bloodbath in the European elections, even after opinion poll after opinion poll showed considerable negativity towards him.
They had an abundance of data, but a total lack of common sense.
The phrase common sense is awful, as @robert_tweed says, it is the opposite of a considered opinion. In politics, however, this idea is particularly egregious, as the article elucidates. If you're wrong about a scientific theory or a computer program, you can tell well enough by testing the things. If you're wrong in politics, it is extremely difficult to obtain empirical evidence that this is the case. That is not t…
Common sense can best be thought of as the collection of small facts that people have acquired through thousands of years of observing humans and the results. eg, Folk Wisdom. It's much more useful than you seem to think it is. Look at priming. It was a recent academic fad, Malcolm Gladwell included a big section on it in "Blink". The idea that you could influence people to walk more slowly by making them read a list…
Wikipedia summarizes "Although semantic, associative, and form priming are well established, some longer-term priming effects were not replicated in further studies, casting doubt on their effectiveness or even existence"
The phrase common sense is awful, as @robert_tweed says, it is the opposite of a considered opinion. In politics, however, this idea is particularly egregious, as the article elucidates. If you're wrong about a scientific theory or a computer program, you can tell well enough by testing the things. If you're wrong in politics, it is extremely difficult to obtain empirical evidence that this is the case. That is not t…
> it is extremely difficult to obtain empirical evidence that this is the case Hume would say it's impossible. And there's plenty of research out there to back him up. I'd disagree with him, but I have to disagree with you first. It's common sense among philosophers to be humean. :)