I liked this quotation by Jaime from another thread.

One blanket phrase that’s always caused me trouble is “common sense.”

I could search the board and find examples, but its use is so frequent that that’s not necessary. I could also get a number of lines from Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, but that isn’t necessary either.

When I’ve ask friends about the meaning of “common sense” in the past, they’ve often joked (at least I hope they were joking) “You wouldn’t know. You don’t have any.”

My history professor from my freshman year at TCU once said, “Common sense is my sense; orthodoxy is mydoxy.” It’s amazing how this has lodged in my memory for 44 years.

Question for Debate:

What is common sense?

Edited to remove note.

Common sense:

(Personal explanation)


1.) The ability to overcome the stupidity of others.

2.) The capacity to see that one option reaps either negative or harmful consequences and avoid negative ramifications using logical reasoning and sound appraisal of a situation.


Pretty much that's the best I can come up with, it's very difficult to come up with a practical use of the term "common sense" and use it in a debate-like argument.

Common sense isn't so common anymore, so I prefer "good judgement".
The norm of so many things has changed so much over the last 40-50 years that good judgement of today would seem outrageous in the post WWII era. Maybe we have been protected too well for too long from the negative consequences of stupid acts, to the extent that we can now often get away with using poor judgement.
Of course, those of us with good judgement, or common sense, are probably exceedingly boring to the rest of us.
At least, that is what my liberal friends tell me.

"Common sense", in my experience, too often tends to be neither common nor very sensible. The similar "conventional wisdom" is often neither conventional nor wise. I approach both with extreme caution.

Whenever I see someone citing "common sense" in a thread I tend to read it as "I have absolutely nothing to back this up - and haven't even bothered doing research - but it's what I've always believed and think everyone else should believe."

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "common sense" as "sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge". I would question the "sound" part of that definition - and would probably eliminate the "specialized": "judgement not based on knowledge" strikes me as being much nearer the mark. "Common sense", after all, tells us that the sun rotates around the earth - and that the earth in question is flat. For that reason, any time I see someone supporting an argument on the basis of "common sense" I take their argument with several truckloads of salt (if I bother reading it at all) - and it doesn't matter whether they're using "common sense" to determine that the war on drugs is pointless or that affirmative action is pointless. To me, "common sense" is about as good as "nonsense", whether I agree with the position being argued or not.

If you're attempting to participate in constructive debate and the best you can come up with to support your argument is "common sense", I wouldn't even bother hitting "Add Reply".

1. When we have common sense, it is the admirable quality of level-headedness in the face of apparent stupidities.
2. When you have it, it is the neutral quality of being able to come up with the "right" answer without being able to satisfactorily justify it using logic, sometimes without even understanding how you arrived at the conclusion yourself.
3. When they have it, it is the reprehensible quality that permits them to justifying their hateful and anti-rational opinions to themselves loudly and without having to listen to anyone contrary opinion, no matter how well argued or justified.

"Common sense" is all these things, usually at the same time. Two people can be having a discussion based on it, and (if they have opposite views on a subject) each of them will believe they themselves is using case 1, and their opponent is using case 3. An outside observer will usually be able to see that both are in fact somewhere lost in case 2.

Notable exceptions are London cab drivers, where - not matter what the subject - their version of common sense is ALWAYS case 3.

Bill55Az - nice anti-liberal dig, by the way.

When I think of 'common sense', I think of it on a more personal level. I think of an individual's personal intuition and instinct. As such, I don't think common sense has any place in the broad philosophical or political realm because it is simply and solely based upon an internal belief - akin to a conscious I suppose. And just as with anything else, not everyone has the same 'common sense'.

My instincts tell me what it means to be a good person. And while they may guide me down the path I take with my own personal set of political beliefs/worldviews, they don't shape those beliefs. I happen to trust my instincts because they've rarely let me down, but instinct and 'common sense' can only take you so far.

What is common sense?


The term common sense (or as an adjective, commonsense) describes beliefs or propositions that seem, to most people, to be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge. These beliefs and propositions are sometimes developed after having studied empirical research.

This is the best definition I could find of "common sense". Although it stems from the individual's perception of sound judgment, it also is a perception shared by most people. Another key point is that common sense beliefs are usually developed after exposure to empirical research or simple human experience as opposed to esoteric knowledge.

It is foolish to discount the value of common sense arguments when trying to persuade someone of a particular point of view. In fact, I believe that if your argument in a debate does not have common sense value, you ultimately have little chance of winning the point.

I have thought about posing a question like this for debate before. I have noticed that Conservatives tend to favor common sense views more so than liberals. Correct me if I am wrong all you liberals out there! I believe the reason for this difference may be attributable to Liberals general tendency to be "progressive" and push for changes that may not have direct corollaries to past experience. I would be interested to hear if others have the same "sense" about this.

You don't think I was being too subtle, do you?
My few liberal friends do live quite interesting lives, are definitely more prone to the taking of risks than boring old me. But we get along, even when making disparaging remarks about each other's political beliefs. We try to do it with humor, rather than meanness. Works for us.

I have a few relatives, by marriage, who don't seem to learn from their own bad experiences, much less the experiences or examples of others. They seem to be allergic to good advice offered by others. Those are the ones who, IMHO, who are definitely lacking in common sense.
2 more relatives, brother and sister, who are likewise stubbornly clinging to lifestyles that keep them poor (but without filing for bankruptcy).
I can't often determine who has it, but when someone does not it is usually a lot more obvious.

If I'm reading you right, I disagree. It appears you are equating empirical research to that of human experience and the two often don't mesh.

Common sense is a sophomoric, immature form of empirical studies. Common sense existed well before empirical science as we know it. Prior to having vast means of communication methods, many people were rather isolated in their corner of the world. Not having access to peer-reviewed scientific studies in the way we do today, people generally relied on popular support of an idea as a means to explain the world, giving rise to what we call 'common sense.'

At one time in our history, it was 'common sense' based on 'experience' that frogs were generated by ponds, the earth was the center of the universe, and the four humours governed our personal health. Empirical science has destroyed all of those pieces of 'common sense'.

In today's world, those who rely on 'common sense' to support their arguments often have nothing else on which to base it. I've always been wary of populism of any sort and I believe those who rely on common sense to support their arguments are acting as populists. It is far easier to band-wagon jump in the name of 'common sense' than to follow the steps of the scientific method to arrive at a fact-based conclusion. Path of least resistance.

Jaime -- I think we are more in agreement -- than not. I was saying that common sense beliefs could be formed based on either empirical evidence or human experience. I think that beliefs based solely on human experiences can be weak for those reasons that you state.

I think my point was more that, a common sense belief, or view, ought not to be discounted out of hand. It has its value and its place in any argument. However, standing on its own, it is not worth much without some other types of evidence or argument in support.

Ive always thought of 'common sense' as base practicalities. Cause and effect of the most obvious. There arent too many political issues that have common sense solutions because of gray areas, but in our lives common sense is used everyday. We pay our bills because if not they will shut off our utilities, we get to work on time because common sense says if we dont we shall get fired. Have sex without protection? A likely pregnancy or STD. Be a criminal, spend time in jail.
Common sense goes well together with the question, " what the hell were you thinking?"
Actions with almost absolute consequences.

I did use this the other day in a post on the Flag Desecration Amendment issue, in saying that with a war in Iraq and a war on terror, a 7 trillion dollar deficeit that Congress should not be spending precious time and possibly incurring new debt to States to put up an uneccessary amendment at this time. So, where is their common sense? Is this a pressing issue? I said.

So to answer about liberals having less common sense, to me this is a classic example HeyLeyanne of conservative lawmakers not using common sense. Its not an issue if flag burning is right or wrong, its just not very good issue for our economy right now. Politically it may be good sense for them, but not practical in any way for the rest of us or the country.

So, I suppose I relate common sense to absolute practicality in situations. Not that absolute practicality is the right thing to do always, given other factors. Thats why it cant be used much in debate but I wouldnt discount it altogether.

(It didnt even come up in the eminent domain thread where everyone agreed the Supremes had stompled most peoples common beliefs or values.)

Perhaps Common Sense relates to being responsible or irresponsible?

I have to go with Wertz on this one- common sense is usually wrong LOL- some things that connote common sense is "don't run with knives" or some such safety issue- but I really don't consider those to be common sense- but safety tips

During my last semester of college- it was very interesting to actually test "common sense"- turns out it is almost always wrong when put to the test, especially dealing with social or science issues.

I couldn't tell you exactly what it is, any more than I could truly write what "love" is- after all, there have been thousands of writers for hundreds of years that have tried to capture that one too, and they have all come up short to some degree.

Perhaps the only true common sense is the knowledge that we can never know everything we think we know LOL

Artemise-- I agree that the flag burning amendment is a silly waste of time when we have more pressing issues to deal with. I am sure that the amendment is being raised for purely political reasons.

What I was asking had to do with how much weight liberals and conservatives give to common sense arguments when addressing a particular issue. I have the sense that conservatives tend to look more favorably on common sense type arguments overall. But by no means do they have a monopoly on that way of thinking. Remember trickle down economics of the Reagan era? I don't think that theory has much common sense value-- or does it? Or, as you mention-- the current huge deficit. Republicans don't seem to have much common sense these days with all of the rampant spending on Capitol hill.

So far “common sense” has been defined from both a theoretical and practical point of view and as a debate tactic.

I tend to think of the phrase as dealing with universals. Let me explain. There’s an old saying, “when you’re cut you’re gonna bleed.” Unless someone is dead, I’d venture this as a universal. Other things are near university. When it hurts bad enough, people cry, but there are exception—some people won’t or can’t cry. Generally people start sneezing when they get a load of dust mites up the snout when emptying a bag less vacuum cleaner. It doesn’t seem to bother other people. Most of us have two legs, two hands, eight fingers, two thumbs and two eyes. From my experience in special education, I realize there are exceptions here also.

Despite these universal or near universal characteristics, I don’t think there’s anything in the phrase “common sense” that begins to approach universal. What you consider “common sense” I might see as “nonsense” and what I see as “common sense” you might equally view as “nonsense.”



I’m sorry hayleyanne, but I do discount “common sense belief … out of hand,” especially as a debate tactic.

As Henry David Thoreau put it:



Note: If possible, I would temper Thoreau's "always" with "usually." Even the great Thoreau occasionally made blanket statements.

While a “common sense” approach may occasionally, even if by sheer accident, lead us to Grandma’s house, it has at least as great a chance of getting us deeper in the woods.

At first I was inclined to agree with you - though that may have had more to do with prejudice than anything. I tend to view both common sense arguments and conservatism rather dimly, so my common sense told me the two are probably linked - that, yes, conservatives are more likely to put stock in "common sense".

Thinking about it a bit more, though, I feel both sides are as prone to rely on common sense as the basis of their beliefs - and the difference may be more pronounced in terms of where each side's skepticism may lie.

Take health care, for example. The conservative's "common sense" tells her that the better society is the one that is more self-reliant, more disciplined - that has more individuals capable of taking care of themselves. The liberal's common sense tells her that the better society is the one that is more compassionate, more nurturing - that has more individuals that are healthy, regardless of who's footing the bill. Neither argument has much to do with empirical data.

The conservative, though, is more skeptical of the untried and more comfortable with that which is "known". The liberal, on the other hand, is more skeptical of the status quo, more willing, as you put it, to accept change that may not have direct corollaries to past experience. But both the "known" and the presumed benefits of change rely, to an extent, more on common sense than hard facts.

And that's where I have to disagree with your suggestion that "common sense beliefs are usually developed after exposure to" or "could be formed" on the basis of either "empirical research or human experience". In my experience, most "common sense" is based on two things: tradition and observation. While it could be argued that tradition is itself based on human experience and that observation is a form of empirical research, neither is that rigorous in terms of drawing sound conclusions.

The notion of a geocentric universe is a prime example. Observation tells us that the sun, moon, and stars revolve around a stationary earth - and centuries of tradition, even among the scientific community (although not without exception), upheld that conclusion. Does that mean that the theory of geocentrism was based on empirical research? Does it mean that we should trust human experience?

The "evidence of things seen" is often a compelling argument on the face of it - but so is "things are not always as they seem". It is for this reason that I find "common sense" arguments of little value, whichever side is using them.

What is common sense?

I agree with both Jaime's and Wertz's assessment of "common sense". If "common sense" means empiricism, then use the term empiricism. All other meanings of "common sense" are useless. It is lazy debating. And (this is a new one for me) from this debate thread, it is also used as an ad hominem attack against those who apparently "don't have it"; and guess who gets to determine who does and does not have it...

Thus, in fairness, all those who wield "common sense" in this manner, I now declare to be <insert insulting ad hominem here> .

To me, common sense means acknowledging the obvious. It could extend to empirical knowledge, or something intuitive. I call it the 'reasonability test' or 'sensibility'.

For example, there have been a number of UFO sightings near area 51 in Nevada. This might indicate that space aliens have a predisposition towards landing near a facility which builds top-secret military aircraft, or it might indicate that most (or all) of those sightings are likely to be experimental aircraft which are mistaken for UFOs. I'd say common sense would rule that it is more likely to be the military aircraft. I could be wrong, of course. Occam's Razor isn't always right, but it's usually reasonably sound.

Of course, not everyone agrees on what is "obvious". Not everyone who thinks that something is obvious is even correct. We all agree that "safety tips", like the ones CR brought up...don't run with knives, is obvious good sense, but in debates the "obvious" isn't always so.

--Albert Einstein


By corollary I think Einstein might have added. "..and genius is the ability to ignore them." Then again, he wasn't much a fan of "genius".


I think the etymology of this phrase goes back to Elizabethan English where "common" meant "low" or "of low status".

The Romantic thinkers convinced us (arguably to this day) to believe that there is some moral superiority to low-born, earthy or common modes of thought and action. i.e. farmers are more wise than philosophers etc...


This is bunk. It is attractive bunk that bore beautiful poetry....but it is bunk nonetheless.

There is no replacement for original ideas, apocryphal thinking and culture-shocking statements. Without these we would all still be "streetsmart" hunter-gatherers.

I'd interpret this as a call for creative and outside-of-the-box thinking, not a refutation of sound judgement or push to ignore the obvious. There's usually some difference between theory and reality. Common sense offers the reality, imaginative thinking offers the theory. I don't think it's wise to ignore either. Here's an example of common sense in action, to solve a direct problem while employing imaginative thinking:

In our house, I wanted to change our light fixture. The original fixture was lightweight, and hung from a chain about 30 feet up. We asked electricians to come to the house and they all told us that the box inside was designed for fixtures under 10 pounds. My new fixture was made of wrought iron, and very heavy. In order to change the fixture to the one I wanted, they told me, they'd have to go up through the attic and change out the box. I'd then have to call someone to fix the roof and the whole job would be extremely expensive. We contacted about 5 different electricians and they each told us the same thing...it would cost around 800 dollars (or more) to change my light fixture. Mr P stood looking at the ceiling, announced, "I have an idea!" called a handiman with a big ladder to come to the house, who took a studfinder and found the stud in the ceiling. He placed a hook in the stud and hooked the chain onto it, so it hung from the hook. The stud, of course, could support the weight of the new fixture. The whole job cost 50 dollars. Every electrician who came to the house had ignored the obvious.

I seem to remember a little book by Thomas Paine offering "simple facts, plain arguments, and Common Sense" in order to illustrate the necessity of American independence. It must have been bunk.

What is common sense?

The logic of battery chickens.



Wow, this paragraph really opened a can of worms in my head! Its for stuff like this that I come to AD!

Unfortunately the train of thought this paragraph set on its way moves away from the topic of this debate, but I still feel compelled to risk the wrath of Jaime and ask: Do you suppose that a 'conservative tendency' in a population, is a result of a society that has moved away from its own common sense towards greater learning/research?

Using America as an example of what I mean; is America so conservative, because it has become so very 'advanced' in its science (and thus moved away from its common sense)?

Can this be applied to all human society? Do we, as society's, become more prone to 'conservative backlash' the more we advance in learning?

Is scientific learning, the very act of asking unanswered questions, the opposite of common sense?

Wertz, I agree that common sense beliefs are also based on observation, but I see that as a crude form of empirical research. I am not so sure about "tradition". People generally view tradition as something that is respected for the sake of respecting it as opposed to a shared belief that the tradition is based in a correct judgment about something. It is/was a tradition that the bride's family pays for the wedding; or that the groom can’t see the bride the night before the wedding. There is no common sense belief there, just a respect and adherence to the traditional way of doing things. Common sense beliefs instead stem from a shared judgment about the truth of a particular judgment call.

People in this thread also seem to be ignoring that common sense beliefs are not only those based on observation etc, but are also SHARED beliefs. Presumably, some of these beliefs would cut across party lines. So, the issue as I see it with respect to liberals and conservatives – is the tendency of Conservatives to adopt these beliefs more willingly as a default position. Liberals, on the other hand, IMO have the tendency to question such beliefs in the name of progressive policy change. The default for liberals seems to be to first question the commonly held beliefs in the culture first and start from square one.

Einstein’s quote captures this sentiment:



The word prejudice connotes something negative, but in reality, prejudices are based in knowledge gained through experience.

And although some “common sense” beliefs do cut across party lines – not all of them do. I think this is attributable to the different premises people start from. Those premises are defined by individual experience and observation. Ex. rewards are reaped by those who work hard vs. the playing field is not level, give rise to different common sense beliefs: affirmative action is racism and affirmative action is the only way to level the playing field for true fairness.



Human observation alone cannot always give us all the answers. However, that does not mean that we ignore human experience and observation. Complex social issues are not answered through traditional science alone. Social science and natural science are not “science” in the same way. Human observation and experience has no role in natural science, as your example points out. In contrast, social issues are inextricably linked to (and affected by) human observation and experience. For this reason, common sense beliefs are relevant to the resolution of social issues and have no compelling relevance in natural science.

If you notice Moif you just gave us a perfect example of common sense. You know that by going off topic to address something you read may incur Jamie's 'wrath'. The reason you have this common sense(maybe we should call it common sense) is you have seen many times where Jaime has admonished somebody for going off topic. Somebody who was not an regular would not have this common sense predisposed to this forum, thus lacking the common sense to realize where their actions could take them.

I think Einstein had a valid point, but disagree on one detail. Prejudices tend to be ingrained in people long before their 18th birthday. According to the late Gordon W. Allport’s, The Nature of Prejudice, 25th Anniversary Edition, 1979:



Further here is how the Oxford American Dictionary, 2004 defines prejudice:



I almost hope, hayleyanne, that I am misreading misinterpreting what you wrote above. If not, this is, without doubt , the most curious take on"prejudice," that I've ever heard and I'm surprised someone hasn't already called you on it. I would suggest that prejudice [common sense] has more to do with what one learns second-hand in the family at an early age than Oxford puts it, “actual experience.” Should this be the case, then I now understand why Dan Quayle popularized the phrase “family values” and why groups like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family stresses a particular definition of family. Why, heck, we can have the type society we [Dobson?] wants if we indoctrinate kids with prejudice and "common sense" from a young age. what a sin it would be to teach them to think and investigate.

All this reminds me of the song “Carefully Taught” from South Pacific:



http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/southpacifi...fullytaught.htm

Why do you hope you are misreading what I wrote? I am saying what Einstein said. Moreover, "prejudices" are learned not just from "family" indoctrination but also from one's own experiences. One's own experiences are, by definition, limited, but seem true to the person.

For example:

Prejudice: Fundamentalist christians are bigoted and judgmental

Some people believe this based on actual experience; others believe it based on what their own families or peer groups have said.

In either case, it is not a universal "truth" anymore than any other prejudice is. It is someone's personal experience that he/she then uses to generalize about a specific group. This is how many "prejudices" come to be.

I don't get where you're coming from, hayleyanne, which is something I suspect I share with BoF



If "prejudice" is indeed "making a judgement in advance" i.e. before one has any experience of something, how is it possible for prejudices to arise from personal experience?

I can see how a pre-existing prejudice might be reinforced by certain experiences, especially if they are limited and filtered by the prejudice itself, but I cannot for the life of me see how a prejudice could arise in the first place from experience, which is what you seem to be saying

I don't think that Einstein's view, which you quoted, was anything other than a condemnation of "common sense", especially when compared to real knowledge.

I think he's saying that "common sense" is what you have until you know better.

Your argument makes more sense to me if you believe that common sense is a good thing to have but which, if you don't have it by age 18, you never will have it. As I say, I think that's pretty much the opposite of what Einstein is trying to say.

Julian-- I was commenting about the origins of a prejudice. The prejudice had to come from somewhere--right? Prejudice can be born out of any number of things: fear, hatred or even a person's own limited experience with individual members of a group. I gave the example of a prejudice that exists about fundamentalist christians. Some people developed this prejudice from their own experiences with christians who have tried to proselytize them etc. Sometimes prejudices develop toward a group out of fear which can lead to hatred. An example there might be americans who are prejudiced against all muslims based on what happened on 9/11. Often times, I think prejudice is born when people start with a single experience they have with individual members of a group and generalize that experience to apply to an entire group.

Why specific prejudices persist is a different matter. They persist from -- as I think Bof is saying -- indoctrination or passed along through generations.

This whole turn of the debate is interesting. Are we all agreeing that "common sense" is really "prejudice"? Are we then debating that "prejudice" is either "bigotry" or just "preconception"? If the choice of words are contested, then choose words that everyone can agree on.

As for fundamentalist christians: I try to love the sinner but hate the sin .

To me, it's the opposite of being naive. It's "seeing" through the verbal smoke screen that a relative or salesman might be spewing out at you. It's not buying anything hook, line, and sinker, no matter how close they are to you, or no matter how close their views are to you. Common sense is critically dissecting anything said toward you or a situation that you are in and deconstructing it to see if it makes sense or not.