The End of "Common Sense"?

pangbang

In a couple of recent threads in after hours I was confronted with the "show me the receipts" type of argument. It got me thinking about how uncritical thought has become in general.

I'm a big fan of "common sense" (and then work upwards from there), which definitely goes against the grain of internet forums and the like. Of course relying on common sense arguments can be a ploy to avoid criticism, I don't personally do that.

I would much rather argue over common sense than get into a list war of articles. I think people can learn a lot more by avoiding lists, generally.

Specific example: in a thread about heterosexual couples versus homosexual couples raising children, I made a very simple point that the vast majority of human history has been one way, and that it has only become a recent phenomenon that same-sex couples can/cant/should/shouldn't raise children.

That's it, my whole point was that we should be careful rushing into unknown territory, and that history has proven that one way works for definite, all generally speaking, all the obvious things taken into account (good parents versus bad). A simple point.

But I was inundated with calls for "proof" that humanity has existed a certain way since the dawn of time, people criticising me for making such an obvious statement. I was linked to a few recent studies that "proved" the opposite of my point. The irony is delicious, denying the entirety of history and asking for proof ("proof" of history, our very existence!), while trying to shoo it away with a few studies that supported their argument. To me, that kind of response is totally mad, and the opposite of "common sense".

I think the internet can more or less prove anything now. You want to find an article that supposes tall people die younger? You got it. You want to find an article that supposes tall people live longer? You got it.

But heres the thing, it seems as though critical reasoning has gone out the window in the process.

Heres what I think happens. Person X sees person Y say something they don't like, they go straight to google, type in a relevant query, grab an article, skim it for a minute (maybe!), pop back onto social media with a link......bang, now theyre "right". The response from person Y is to do the same.

But its all practically pointless! I doubt anyone is learning anything from skimming google search results. In fact I'd say that the opposite is true, we are UN-learning "common sense", instead relying on the internet to back up anything and everything we want to believe. And I'd say that the general polarisation of the planet can be attributed to this.

Feelings versus facts.

When this crap "logic" starts to leak into real life, we'll be in a world of simpletons. (Ie, person whipping out a phone during a conversation, doing the google search to "prove" their point, ive seen it more and more over recent years)

The dangerous thing is that in a world where nearly anything can be "proven" and polarisation continues in bounds, we will all be at the mercy of manipulation. The internet, in its current form, will be the greatest propaganda machine ever created.

So a few questions.

Are we looking at the end of common sense? The irony that with more information than ever, we are becoming less intelligent with critical thought?

Do we need internet regulation? I mean, you (generally) don't have every goon in the country able to broadcast on radio or television, why should the internet be different?

Do we need to re-engage common sense, and start thinking critically instead of spoon feeding each other article titles from google search results?


Disclaimer: I'm obviously not talking about argument in general here, I'm talking about forums, message boards, social media. Very, very, very few people are actually experts in their field of argument, and very, very, very few are actually going to engage linked articles and read further into a topic. They will stop at whatever proves their point, and it can be used to shut down an argument simply by calling for "proof".

And of course common sense can be misguided too, no need to point it out. But the great thing about correcting misperception is that common sense is quick, easy, understandable, relatable, based on common experience, history, example, analogy.

Pinch Flat

The problem with common sense is that it's not too common

pangbang

For the larf, I went to google and typed in "internet can prove anything".

Tons of results, all basically saying the same thing.

Not that I read them, of course. I'm only out to prove a point :P

Mrs OBumble

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The problem with common sense is that it's not too common

And sometimes not sensible either, if you stop and think about it.

drunkmonkey

I wouldn't worry too much about it, the minute you throw logic into those kinda arguments their straw houses collapse.

pangbang

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The problem with common sense is that it's not too common

True to an extent, we all do stupid stuff. But common sense is based on common experience and common learning.

Take that new Alien film, Prometheus. They land on a planet and start playing with an alien life form, thinking its cute. Then it kills them.

If I arrived on an alien planet, I'm not going to take my space suit off, I'm going to run a mile from any sort of alien, etc etc.

I've never been on an alien planet, but common sense tells me that certain things are probably stupid to do! I wouldn't need an article to tell me that, I've never read anything about encountering life-forms.....I just know, from common sense.

Silly example! But you could replace it with a wild animal here on earth that you've never met too.

pangbang

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And sometimes not sensible either, if you stop and think about it.

As I mentioned above though, common sense arguments are quick and easy. You'll soon find out that such and such a thing isn't sensible.

Or you could enter the list-wars and never learn anything :P

Ulysses Gaze

Pinch Flat wrote: »

The problem with common sense is that it's not too common

And never has been.

LadyMacBeth_

We don't fully know how families lived before written records, we have theories formed by archaeologists based on evidence. Even since the written word though we have plenty of examples of how families have not always been nuclear in structure. I don't know how you can't understand that. You can't just throw out "facts" like 'but the way families are now is how they always have been since the dawn of time" and say it's common sense. You can't possibly just know that.

Ugh.

MRnotlob606

TLTR.

pangbang

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

We don't fully know how families lived before written records, we have theories formed by archaeologists based on evidence. Even since the written word though we have plenty of examples of how families have not always been nuclear in structure. I don't know how you can't understand that. You can't just throw out "facts" like 'but the way families are now is how they always have been since the dawn of time" and say it's common sense. You can't possibly just know that.

Ugh.

Fair enough, you question history then. I don't. And I don't need to be hand-held with articles describing the discourse of family structure through the Aztec period, the romans, the Egyptians, the Victorians, cave-men, troglodytes, 50's America, industrialisation and so on. I can draw a "common sense" interpretation from all of it. A cumulative knowledge that leads to a broad generalisation.

In fact maybe "broad generalisations" are another way of stating "common sense". Not a perfect sentiment at all, but absolutely dangerous to ignore.

I don't need to know the difference between the lesser-spotted Hungarian sabre-tooth tiger and the Sumatran mongoose-hunting pink tiger. I can generally interpret that they are both dangerous, and that's common sense. Someone arguing about the differences between them is, in my opinion, distraction and discourse from a certain point at hand.

I used that certain thread as an example of what I'm talking about in this thread, this thread isn't about that older topic.

B0jangles

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

We don't fully know how families lived before written records, we have theories formed by archaeologists based on evidence. Even since the written word though we have plenty of examples of how families have not always been nuclear in structure. I don't know how you can't understand that. You can't just throw out "facts" like 'but the way families are now is how they always have been since the dawn of time" and say it's common sense. You can't possibly just know that.

Ugh.

That's how the 'common sense' argument works; you observe something about your particular bit of society or your environment as it is right now and assume that that's the way things have been since time began, and that they work the same way everywhere in the world.

common sense has led to people thinking plants with foot-shaped leaves heal your feet, that heavy objects fall faster than light ones and that the earth is the centre of the solar system.

pangbang

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

TLTR.

Maybe I should have posted a link to someone elses thoughts instead?

Because you're bound to read an entire scientific article that could be 50 times longer instead, right?

You're kinda proving my point, hopefully as a joke.

StupidLikeAFox

I'll have you know that tall people do live longer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-53440/Why-taller-people-live-longer.html

No wait, short people live longer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2625870/Short-men-live-longer-genes-Those-5ft-2in-longest-lives-study-says.html

pangbang

B0jangles wrote: »

That's how the 'common sense' argument works; you observe something about your particular bit of society or your environment as it is right now and assume that that's the way things have been since time began, and that they work the same way everywhere in the world.

common sense has led to people thinking plants with foot-shaped leaves heal your feet, that heavy objects fall faster than light ones and that the earth is the centre of the solar system.

The first part of your comment is for eejits. What about if a person can observe ALL societies and ALL environments and NOT just the present.....what do you call it when its well-informed? Inconvenient?

For the bolded, no, that's not common sense at all. That's misinformation. I doubt many people have looked at plants shaped like a feet and thought it might be good for the feet (using my own common sense). I bet theres plenty that were TOLD that it was good for the feet. See the difference?

You are literally proving my point with that example. That people are told what to believe, rather than using their own head.

Common sense prevents people from being bitten by poisonous snakes when they have never seen a snake before, stops them from walking under traffic the first time in Malaysia, because they recognise the commonality with roads here. Common sense is spontaneously interpretive, not taught.

LeinsterDub

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

TLTR.

Op prefers to feel it in their waters. When you use facts to disprove them or ask them to provide evidence they are irked

ThinkProgress

pangbang wrote: »

True to an extent, we all do stupid stuff. But common sense is based on common experience and common learning.

Take that new Alien film, Prometheus. They land on a planet and start playing with an alien life form, thinking its cute. Then it kills them.

If I arrived on an alien planet, I'm not going to take my space suit off, I'm going to run a mile from any sort of alien, etc etc.

I've never been on an alien planet, but common sense tells me that certain things are probably stupid to do! I wouldn't need an article to tell me that, I've never read anything about encountering life-forms.....I just know, from common sense.

Silly example! But you could replace it with a wild animal here on earth that you've never met too.

It's actually not that silly, really...

There are lots of people who will take academic studies or half-baked research about say, sharks for example... this particular study might inform the reader, that sharks are actually not all that dangerous really. And are, in fact, just very misunderstood creatures. Not born killers at all... :rolleyes:

This leads to Mr "highly informed" Joe Bloggs, diving into some shark hot spot off the coast of Australia, confident in the knowledge that he'll never get eaten... "sure the big clever boffins say they're very friendly!" :P

B0jangles

pangbang wrote: »

The first part of your comment is for eejits. What about if a person can observe ALL societies and ALL environments and NOT just the present.....what do you call it when its well-informed? Inconvenient?

For the bolded, no, that's not common sense at all. That's misinformation. I doubt many people have looked at plants shaped like a feet and thought it might be good for the feet (using my own common sense). I bet theres plenty that were TOLD that it was good for the feet. See the difference?

You are literally proving my point with that example. That people are told what to believe, rather than using their own head.

Common sense prevents people from being bitten by poisonous snakes when they have never seen a snake before, stops them from walking under traffic the first time in Malaysia, because they recognise the commonality with roads here. Common sense is spontaneously interpretive, not taught.

Bolded point: No, I call that impossible - no-one is able to observe all aspects of all societies and all environments throughout all of time. If you think you are able to do so, then you are delusional.

As to the rest, that's just you rejecting facts which do not fit into your world-view and then making some generalizations which just happen support it.

One_Of_Shanks

Well I thought it was an excellent post. Agree entirely.

It's evident in all aspects of society these days. Even the good auld sports chat about a player is now ended with "i have his stats here to prove it".
Usually it proves nothing much other than the person you're talking to can't master the art of observing and forming their own opinions.

But that's the age we live in. People want everything fast, including being right, even when they're possibly wrong.

I had a bizarre argument with someone last night (online) who claimed Ghandi was a paedo. So I said it was an awful thing to say and his response was "where's the proof that he wasn't?"
How do you reply to that?

pangbang

B0jangles wrote: »

Bolded point: No, I call that impossible - no-one is able to observe all aspects of all societies and all environments throughout all of time. If you think you are able to do so, then you are delusional.

As to the rest, that's just you rejecting facts which do not fit into your world-view and then making some generalizations which just happen support it.

First bolded part......fine, then that means you are completely incapable of doing it either. Now what? Have you managed to derail my point by making a non-point?

Second bolded part.......you show me the facts to the contrary then. Namely, that people were not told to believe such a thing about plants, but rather everyone was a simpleton.

You cant, and that's where common sense comes in.

Here, I'll do it for you.

Is it more likely that A) people were wandering around countrysides, never having heard anything about foot-shaped-feet-healing plants, and then saw foot-shaped plants and automatically came to the conclusion that "yeah, that's good for my feet".

Or a ridiculously small minority of people managed to spread misinformation to people at large, telling that foot-shaped plants were good for their feet, and that then they believed it and continued to spread that misinformation.

Which one is more likely?

I mean, again, you are proving my point with the absolute lack of critical thought or common sense.

pangbang

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Well I thought it was an excellent post. Agree entirely.

It's evident in all aspects of society these days. Even the good auld sports chat about a player is now ended with "i have his stats here to prove it".
Usually it proves nothing much other than the person you're talking to can't master the art of observing and forming their own opinions.

But that's the age we live in. People want everything fast, including being right, even when they're possibly wrong.

I had a bizarre argument with someone last night (online) who claimed Ghandi was a paedo. So I said it was an awful thing to say and his response was "where's the proof that he wasn't?"
How do you reply to that?

Its mind-numbing stuff!

B0jangles

Hang on, are you requiring ME to product facts on demand, and not only facts but facts which prove a negative, when all you apparently have to do is make up pretty much anything you like that sounds reasonable (to you) and that apparently counts as a valid rebuttal?

Let me know when you make some kind of valid point and I'll get back to you.

'absolute lack of critical thought'

LMAO

pangbang

B0jangles wrote: »

Hang on, are you requiring ME to product facts on demand, and not only facts but facts which prove a negative, when all you apparently have to do is make up pretty much anything you like that sounds reasonable (to you) and that apparently counts as a valid rebuttal?

Let me know when you make some kind of valid point and I'll get back to you.

'absolute lack of critical thought'

LMAO

Answer the question then. Is A) or more or less likely. Feel free to engage common sense.

Or are you avoiding a question that ultimately destroys your non-point, sneaking away under the veil of "laughing out loud" while literally quoting "absolute lack of critical thought"?

It looks ridiculous.

B0jangles

Sorry, it's just too sunny outside, not going to waste any more time doing the online equivalent of playing chess with a pigeon; it's just common sense!

pangbang

B0jangles wrote: »

Sorry, it's just too sunny outside, not going to waste any more time doing the online equivalent of playing chess with a pigeon; it's just common sense!

So you have no time to answer A) or , but you have time to tell me you don't have time to answer.

I think that's what you call being backed into a corner, and then not having the common sense to say nothing more.

Enjoy the sunshine.

WinnyThePoo

Man angry his world view is challenged.

Facts are better than 'common sense'

pangbang

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Man angry his world view is challenged.

Facts are better than 'common sense'

Not angry in the slightest. Bemused, maybe, disappointed, sure.

And you say this, having read the exchange between me and bojangles, and "liking" his posts.

Well, there you have it folks. Feelings.

Maybe you didn't read my thread properly, so I'll sum it up for you.

When facts can be picked up at random to "prove" one side of an argument or the other.....they negate each other, they cancel each other, they neutralise each other.

So what have you got left? I say "common sense".

You interpreted everything incorrectly, perhaps purposefully, because (and heres where I use common sense to make an educated guess)......you don't like it.

Thanks for popping by though, you got to visually support the ridiculous comments of bojangles and allies, and made a totally incorrect assumption to boot. A twofer.

WinnyThePoo

pangbang wrote: »

Not angry in the slightest. Bemused, maybe, disappointed, sure.

And you say this, having read the exchange between me and bojangles, and "liking" his posts.

Well, there you have it folks. Feelings.

Maybe you didn't read my thread properly, so I'll sum it up for you.

When facts can be picked up at random to "prove" one side of an argument or the other.....they negate each other, they cancel each other, they neutralise each other.

So what have you got left? I say "common sense".

You interpreted everything incorrectly, perhaps purposefully, because (and heres where I use common sense to make an educated guess)......you don't like it.

Thanks for popping by though, you got to visually support the ridiculous comments of bojangles and allies, and made a totally incorrect assumption to boot. A twofer.

southstar

pangbang wrote: »

In a couple of recent threads in after hours I was confronted with the "show me the receipts" type of argument. It got me thinking about how uncritical thought has become in general.

I'm a big fan of "common sense" (and then work upwards from there), which definitely goes against the grain of internet forums and the like. Of course relying on common sense arguments can be a ploy to avoid criticism, I don't personally do that.

I would much rather argue over common sense than get into a list war of articles. I think people can learn a lot more by avoiding lists, generally.

Specific example: in a thread about heterosexual couples versus homosexual couples raising children, I made a very simple point that the vast majority of human history has been one way, and that it has only become a recent phenomenon that same-sex couples can/cant/should/shouldn't raise children.

That's it, my whole point was that we should be careful rushing into unknown territory, and that history has proven that one way works for definite, all generally speaking, all the obvious things taken into account (good parents versus bad). A simple point.

But I was inundated with calls for "proof" that humanity has existed a certain way since the dawn of time, people criticising me for making such an obvious statement. I was linked to a few recent studies that "proved" the opposite of my point. The irony is delicious, denying the entirety of history and asking for proof ("proof" of history, our very existence!), while trying to shoo it away with a few studies that supported their argument. To me, that kind of response is totally mad, and the opposite of "common sense".

I think the internet can more or less prove anything now. You want to find an article that supposes tall people die younger? You got it. You want to find an article that supposes tall people live longer? You got it.

But heres the thing, it seems as though critical reasoning has gone out the window in the process.

Heres what I think happens. Person X sees person Y say something they don't like, they go straight to google, type in a relevant query, grab an article, skim it for a minute (maybe!), pop back onto social media with a link......bang, now theyre "right". The response from person Y is to do the same.

But its all practically pointless! I doubt anyone is learning anything from skimming google search results. In fact I'd say that the opposite is true, we are UN-learning "common sense", instead relying on the internet to back up anything and everything we want to believe. And I'd say that the general polarisation of the planet can be attributed to this.

Feelings versus facts.

When this crap "logic" starts to leak into real life, we'll be in a world of simpletons. (Ie, person whipping out a phone during a conversation, doing the google search to "prove" their point, ive seen it more and more over recent years)

The dangerous thing is that in a world where nearly anything can be "proven" and polarisation continues in bounds, we will all be at the mercy of manipulation. The internet, in its current form, will be the greatest propaganda machine ever created.

So a few questions.

Are we looking at the end of common sense? The irony that with more information than ever, we are becoming less intelligent with critical thought?

Do we need internet regulation? I mean, you (generally) don't have every goon in the country able to broadcast on radio or television, why should the internet be different?

Do we need to re-engage common sense, and start thinking critically instead of spoon feeding each other article titles from google search results?


Disclaimer: I'm obviously not talking about argument in general here, I'm talking about forums, message boards, social media. Very, very, very few people are actually experts in their field of argument, and very, very, very few are actually going to engage linked articles and read further into a topic. They will stop at whatever proves their point, and it can be used to shut down an argument simply by calling for "proof".

And of course common sense can be misguided too, no need to point it out. But the great thing about correcting misperception is that common sense is quick, easy, understandable, relatable, based on common experience, history, example, analogy.

Fine but take a look are your own arguments here ...I get as much sense of feeling over fact from you as I do of common sense
.How can you unlearn common sense?

Denying the entirety of history...surely an example of hyperbole and misrepresentation on your part...considering that you subsuquenty conclude that the quality of parenting is whats important not the gender of the parents.Im only using your example mind.
Why should the internet be different?...well because its the flippin internet while yes I agree it gives a platform for very weird/stupid(fill in the gaps)people who leave me wondering whether to laugh or cry sometimes.
But I'm merely trying to pint out that you don't own common sense and trying to regulate for it makes none whatsoever.

One_Of_Shanks

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Man angry his world view is challenged.

Facts are better than 'common sense'

Better to actually have a view and start an interesting thread than post a sarcastic reply and stick up a video though eh?

Fine to disagree with someone, by all accounts. But at least do it constructively.

pangbang

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

That's my point.

Oh wait! You posted a video to state in a roundabout way that you thought my post was dumb........oh right! I see the way you didn't acknowledge anything I said, got "liked" by your friend for saying absolutely nothing, and just generally have fu*ck all to say.

Nice one.

Let me guess though, you have the time to post in the thread, but no time to say anything of note? But of course that's because you think the topic is "dumb"

What a never-ending circle-jerk of nothingness. Yeesh :P

pangbang

southstar wrote: »

Fine but take a look are your own arguments here ...I get as much sense of feeling over fact from you as I do of common sense
.How can you unlearn common sense?

Denying the entirety of history...surely an example of hyperbole and misrepresentation on your part...considering that you subsuquenty conclude that the quality of parenting is whats important not the gender of the parents.Im only using your example mind.
Why should the internet be different?...well because its the flippin internet while yes I agree it gives a platform for very weird/stupid(fill in the gaps)people who leave me wondering whether to laugh or cry sometimes.
But I'm merely trying to pint out that you don't own common sense and trying to regulate for it makes none whatsoever.

How can you unlearn common sense? Well as I said, a good way is probably by relying more and more on google searches, having other people make an argument for you etc. That's how.

I agree with the bit of hyperbole, but semantics aside, it doesn't change the thrust of my point.

I don't get your point about internet regulation. How are other forms of communication regulated? Why should the internet be different?

I think its just a matter of time before a regulatory body of some sort clamps down on the internet (based on common sense, looking at other forms of communication and joining the dots). We'll probably look back at some point, telling our robotic children there was a time when ANYONE could post ANYTHING on the internet.

Enjoy it while it lasts!

fly_agaric

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

"where's the proof that he wasn't?"
How do you reply to that?

I suppose obvious reply is that if you're making some extrordinary claim it is down to you to provide strong evidence for it. It is not the job of people mocking your crank theory to prove you wrong.

Whether the kind of people who come out with the moonlandings didn't happen etc (or Gandhi was a paedo) will pay any attention is doubtful, so maybe it is better to just say nothing.

Dyr

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Man angry his world view is challenged.

Facts are better than 'common sense'

Facts are less common than common sense. Especially when it comes to the social sciences

Which has become a bit of an oxymoron at this stage

pangbang

fly_agaric wrote: »

I suppose obvious reply is that if you're making some extrordinary claim it is down to you to provide strong evidence for it. It is not the job of people mocking your crank theory to prove you wrong.

Whether the kind of people who come out with the moonlandings didn't happen etc. will pay any attention is doubtful, so maybe it is better to just say nothing.

True. But I find its increasingly going the other direction these days, that its the pie-in-the-sky types that go marching around demanding proof.

The world is going upside down, seriously! No wonder Trump won, no wonder Brexit happened, no wonder terrorism is on the rise, no wonder war is on the rise, no wonder we're all separating into tribes again.......

This internet malarkey and all its information, good and bad, is upending us.

Nobodies at the wheel of this speeding bus, and everyone in the back arguing over the stupidest **** that wouldn't have gotten a batted eyelid previously. Over the cliff we go

pangbang

Bambi wrote: »

Facts are less common than common sense. Especially when it comes to the social sciences

Which has become a bit of an oxymoron at this stage

That's true enough! In the absence of 100% fact, that's where common sense is supposed to kick in......not bloody feelings!

One_Of_Shanks

pangbang wrote: »

True. But I find its increasingly going the other direction these days, that its the pie-in-the-sky types that go marching around demanding proof.

Well, that was actually the case. I was asked to prove that he wasn't

B_Wayne

This reads more like op's view was challenged and he's annoyed by this..."The death of op's gut instinct being treated as fact?

pangbang

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

Well, that was actually the case. I was asked to prove that he wasn't

Sounds about right these days. I cant say that he wasn't a paedophile, but thinking a bit critically about it....

paedophilia is such a small number of people no matter who an individual might be....

Ghandi is a famous person, therefore will have a lot of stuff said about him, loads correct and incorrect......

having a controversial opinion on history is particularly popular these days, retro-active re-writing.....

Just those few points alone, without doing a second of research, tells me that its probably untrue. If I want to know more I can research it myself, but I'll start from basic, logical assumptions as a foundation.

And that's common sense!

pangbang

B_Wayne wrote: »

This reads more like op's view was challenged and he's annoyed by this...

You've read everything this far in the thread, and your conclusion is that I'm miffed about something so decided to write a lengthy thread to justify my feelings?

Nah, that's pretty much the exact opposite of my point.

B_Wayne

pangbang wrote: »

You've read everything this far in the thread, and your conclusion is that I'm miffed about something so decided to write a lengthy thread to justify my feelings?

Nah, that's pretty much the exact opposite of my point.

To use what you started thread over. Family structures have generally varied even in recorded history. Even in the last century, plenty of people rarely saw their fathers to the point of them impacting how they were raised.

Personal experience or guessing how millenniums before us behaved is not a good gauge on anything. Common sense would have dictated at one stage that serfdom or slavery is okay. Common sense is beneficial but to summarily use it when we do have research and studies. (pretty much everything has meta analyses etc) That's lazy and dangerous in its own right, particularly if you use it for law and the likes.

kylith

pangbang wrote: »

Fair enough, you question history then. I don't. And I don't need to be hand-held with articles describing the discourse of family structure through the Aztec period, the romans, the Egyptians, the Victorians, cave-men, troglodytes, 50's America, industrialisation and so on. I can draw a "common sense" interpretation from all of it..

Except you can't draw a 'common sense' interpretation when you're ignoring the facts. Because how you're coming across is more:
"...this is the way families have always been: common sense"
"But there's swathes of documentary evidence that families have not always been like that"
"I don't need your 'facts' and 'evidence' and 'book learnin''!

When "common sense" ignores evidence it's not sense, it's nonsense.

"Dogs and cats always 100% hate each other, common sense"
"Actually, here's photos of dogs and cats who are friends"
"G'way out of here with your 'facts' and 'evidence'. My uninformed, blinkered views that I phrase as self-evident wisdom have always been good enough for me!"

pangbang wrote: »

True. But I find its increasingly going the other direction these days, that its the pie-in-the-sky types that go marching around demanding proof.

Starting to think that you're pulling our legs now, cos that's not what that idiom means.

pangbang

B_Wayne wrote: »

To use what you started thread over. Family structures have generally varied even in recorded history. Even in the last century, plenty of people rarely saw their fathers to the point of them impacting how they were raised.

Personal experience or guessing how millenniums before us behaved is not a good gauge on anything. Common sense would have dictated at one stage that serfdom or slavery is okay. Common sense is beneficial but to summarily use it when we do have research and studies. (pretty much everything has meta analyses etc) That's lazy and dangerous in its own right, particularly if you use it for law and the likes.

For the first bit of bolded, yeah, I do think its a good gauge to form a foundational thought based on general history. GENERAL history.

Regarding it being common sense that slavery was a good idea....no, I don't put that down to common sense at all. Somebody else tried that logic earlier in the thread too, it doesnt add up.

Slavery is NOT common sense. It was a proscribed way of life dictated by a minority that was taken up by the majority and then perpetuated. It is not common sense.

Common sense, on the contrary, would have told people, if they had actually ENGAGED their noggins instead of being told what to think, that having another human being as a slave was bound to go arseways eventually, whether through revolution or what have you.

So I take your point, but I believe it goes further to proving my point, that NOT engaging common sense is the real mistake, and it is indeed dangerous and lazy to go the other direction.

kylith

pangbang wrote: »

Slavery is NOT common sense. It was a proscribed way of life dictated by a minority that was taken up by the majority and then perpetuated. It is not common sense.

Common sense, on the contrary, would have told people, if they had actually ENGAGED their noggins instead of being told what to think, that having another human being as a slave was bound to go arseways eventually, whether through revolution or what have you.

So I take your point, but I believe it goes further to proving my point, that NOT engaging common sense is the real mistake, and it is indeed dangerous and lazy to go the other direction.

Nonsense! There are people whose role is to serve, and people whose role is to be served; common sense. God created the world like that, after all. Sure, how would you build a great city or civilisation without slaves to do the hard work? That's why god made people to be slaves; common sense.

pangbang

kylith wrote: »

Except you can't draw a 'common sense' interpretation when you're ignoring the facts. Because how you're coming across is more:
"...this is the way families have always been: common sense"
"But there's swathes of documentary evidence that families have not always been like that"
"I don't need your 'facts' and 'evidence' and 'book learnin''!

When "common sense" ignores evidence it's not sense, it's nonsense.

"Dogs and cats always 100% hate each other, common sense"
"Actually, here's photos of dogs and cats who are friends"
"G'way out of here with your 'facts' and 'evidence'. My uninformed, blinkered views that I phrase as self-evident wisdom have always been good enough for me!"


Starting to think that you're pulling our legs now, cos that's not what that idiom means.

Look, to be perfectly clear, I'm not getting into that particular point anymore. It was from another thread, and surprisingly(!) enough, people from that other thread have appeared here to "like" each other, even when some of the liked comments are clearly ridiculous.

Its an in-depth conversation that wont fit in here. People made their feelings clear on both sides in the other thread, I'm happy to leave it at that, it was merely a mention of an example in my thread starter. Some will absolutely see this as a sign that I have nothing to say or backup....enjoy it, even though its not true.

Even you yourself have taken poorly veiled jabs at me, telling me quite a lot of your viewpoint and your feelings.

Don't be fooled by the amount of likes you'll get for that comment, its not particularly clever, but it does fit the agenda...and that's all that matters.

Riddle101

Common sense is good, but in discussion forums like these you have to be able to back up your arguments. It's not enough to be able to say "oh yeah it's common sense" because people have their own views and won't always agree on what is common sense. To me it's common sense to back up your argument. Not just for the sake of the argument, but to prove that your point is credible.

B_Wayne

pangbang wrote: »

For the first bit of bolded, yeah, I do think its a good gauge to form a foundational thought based on general history. GENERAL history.

Regarding it being common sense that slavery was a good idea....no, I don't put that down to common sense at all. Somebody else tried that logic earlier in the thread too, it doesnt add up.

Slavery is NOT common sense. It was a proscribed way of life dictated by a minority that was taken up by the majority and then perpetuated. It is not common sense.

Common sense, on the contrary, would have told people, if they had actually ENGAGED their noggins instead of being told what to think, that having another human being as a slave was bound to go arseways eventually, whether through revolution or what have you.

So I take your point, but I believe it goes further to proving my point, that NOT engaging common sense is the real mistake, and it is indeed dangerous and lazy to go the other direction.

No, you've literally shown yourself to be guessing how every civilization in relation to child rearing have behaved. There's literally entire PhDs dedicated it but you're simply claiming that "common sense" overrules, common sense as we know it can be ill informed.

In relation to the slavery thing, no common sense doesn't play in. Empathy to what another is experiencing is beneficial. But you could easily find people who would claim common sense justifications. Eg I've seen person who claims that homosexuality is an evolutionary "error", they would claim it's a common sense argument. However it's actually a poor comprehension of evolution. You yourself are doing similar right now, common sense can be twisted as much as one wants. Facts do not matter and it can easily become bull****.

pangbang

kylith wrote: »

Nonsense! There are people whose role is to serve, and people whose role is to be served; common sense. God created the world like that, after all. Sure, how would you build a great city or civilisation without slaves to do the hard work? That's why god made people to be slaves; common sense.

So youre equating a person behind the till at mcdonalds with a black person picking cotton for a master.

No need to go any further with this, its ridiculous.

lawred2

History has proven that one way works for definite

Lol @ that

pangbang

B_Wayne wrote: »

No, you've literally shown yourself to be guessing how every civilization in relation to child rearing have behaved. There's literally entire PhDs dedicated it but you're simply claiming that "common sense" overrules, common sense as we know it can be ill informed.

In relation to the slavery thing, no common sense doesn't play in. Empathy to what another is experiencing is beneficial. But you could easily find people who would claim common sense justifications. Eg I've seen person who claims that homosexuality is an evolutionary "error", they would claim it's a common sense argument. However it's actually a poor comprehension of evolution. You yourself are doing similar right now, common sense can be twisted as much as one wants. Facts do not matter and it can easily become bull****.

No, plain and simple. Justifying a status quo is NOT common sense, no matter how many people keep telling you differently. That is MY point.

Believing that one group of people work against their will, for nothing, for another group of people is NOT common sense.

Stepping outside of the general mindset, even at that time, and adding things up for yourself, would tell you that there is no way this is going to last. That would have been common sense.

And telling me that history is nuanced does nothing. I know that. I do have a problem with someone dismissing general truth in favour of nuance though. One is more important than the other, and exceptions don't make rules.

But as I said already, I don't want to go any further into the same sex couples thing, because its too hot a topic and I'm fighting a losing battle on this forum where everyone gangs up.

Even now, as I'm writing this reply, I can see that their are 5 replies waiting for me, and I'm guessing that its all centered around the same sex issue. I shouldn't have used that as an example in my thread, it was always going to attract the wrong comments, my mistake.

I also mentioned internet regulation but that's just been brushed aside!

kylith

pangbang wrote: »

So youre equating a person behind the till at mcdonalds with a black person picking cotton for a master.

No need to go any further with this, its ridiculous.

No: people who think 'it's common sense' is an unassailable argument would.