and while common sense can be demonstrated to be wrong sometimes such as global warming maybe, it is most often correct. You would for example, not put your hand in a fire unprotected for several minutes and not expect to be severly burned. Common sense is not putting a whole bunch of math equations on a chalkboard behind you in videos because it will make you appear pretenious. That is common sense.
@violentlyhappy1 If those had been math eqns, it would be perfectly reasonable as I do quite of bit of math programming and I do a lot of volunteer math tutoring. As it happens, they are not equations; those were notes of plans for "science night" where we (my employer) invites students to the company, along with local scientists (from NASA, NIH, universities, etc.) to demonstrate scientific concepts. For someone with such a vast background you sure are eager to say stupid shit.
"injecting somebody with viruses and that is going to keep someone from getting sick... that´s not common sense"
well we don´t really do that do we? vaccines are not live viruses, or if they are, they are viruses which can´t infect cells. So your whole argument against common sense is based on misunderstandings..
By live virus what they mean is live attenuated virus. Live attenuated means crucial parts of the DNA of the virus is removed, or the bacteria (or virus) is otherwise altered through infecting it with a vector, which makes it impossible for the virus to be infectious in the cells of the body or cause illness in a human host. It is live, but can´t infect cells. If you put it that way, it would be common sense.
@TheFallibleFiend yes he was. Because he said, it is not common sense to say you prevent diseases by infecting the body with a live virus, but he leaves out the crucial part, which is that it is a live virus which can´t actually infect or harm the body. Therefore, if you put it that way, it would not be contrary to common sense.
@violentlyhappy1 No he wasn't. He wasn't writing a scientific treatise. He was expressing a fundamental issue with people misunderstanding science. There are people who say attenuated or not, they don't want viruses injected in them. He's saying it's counter-intuitive, but it works. You're just making shit up to justify having said something false and stupid.
yes, but they are not the majority by any means, nor is injecting a virus which can´t actuially infect you against common sense, therefore what this has to do with common sense is beyond me. Actually scrap that, it has nothing to do with common sense. This would be an example of a non sequitur argument.
Common sense refers to social and interpersonal intelligence, which is scientifically demonstrable form of intelligence in psychology, but it is not measured by standard intelligence exams like the WAIS:
Common sense would be not to touch an electric cable while standing in a pool of water. In that regards common sense are things which are inherently known by most people, which people do not need to demonstrate to someone, because it is assumed most people already know it.
I would agree in terms of scientific analysis "common sense" can be a hazard. If what one means is instinctual conclusions. But if we are talking about "common sense" in terms of an analytical process using critical thinking..then I think it's highly important. And really the true definition. Look up Chomsky talking about "Cartesian common sense".
I would say that "common sense" is not innate, but describes an expectation of knowledge one should have at a given age. For example, when one is the product of good parenting, one should know by age 9 or 10 (and hopefully well before then) it is a matter of common sense that one doesn't stand on a wet bathroom floor while using the hair dryer.
I can't count the number of times I've been called arrogant simply because I've questioned people's reliance on "common sense". I've also noticed that this is usually followed with a "why do you have to argue about this?" or a change in subject.
Probably one of the stupidest thing I've had someone say to me when I was unsure of something was "Use your common sense". What this really means is "Stop thinking and just do what everyone else does".
Ahhh yes, one of my favorite sayings is "Common sense has never been less common"
Great vid! And interesting point on the bit about fighting against common sense. I'm not sure I've really thought about it from that perspective before, so thanks!
One of my favorite examples is The Monty Hall Problem (Google it).
Everyone's "common sense" tells them switching doors gives the same odds when in fact you DOUBLE your chance of winning by switching. This "common sense" is so strong that people get angry when told they are wrong. The thing is that your brain is solving a different problem which is very similar.
@TheFallibleFiend I found it at reocities. com/Athens/8994/gameshow. html
I remember when I first saw the problem (on TV) I figured it was 50/50 and would not matter if you switched. When the person told me I was wrong I hit pause and ran over to my desk and did the probability tree and found out I was wrong. It took me 2 weeks to figure out why my brain failed me. It was solving the problem where the host randomly picked one of the 2 other doors and just happened to not pick the car.
I don't think that people should trust scientists just because they are scientists. I think that people should engaged in their own scientific inquiry and do there own science research rather than succumb to the appeal of authority fallacy. Scientists are human beings just like every other person and they can let greed and corruption get in the way of scientific progress. Nobel laureate physicist johannes stark once claimed that Einstein's theory of Relativity was pseudo jewish science.
@Pentazoid111 If we're going to refute scientists, we need to make sure we've done as much study as they have. The primary fallacy that most people make is that they think whatever bit of silly "research" they have done on a subject is profound. Of course scientists are subject to the same biases that all humans are subject to - but they have a way of digging out of their wholes called the scientific method and peer review.
I am arguing that people should not trust scientists in the same way that people used to trust their priests for all knowledge in medieval europe. People should look into to the research of the scientists and the research of the opposing scientists and then engaged in their own scientific research. TThere is no reason why the lay person can't apply the scientific method in their own research. Einstein , Newton, Galileo never published there scientific papers in peer reviewed journals.
@Pentazoid111 Einstein did publish in a peer-reviewed journal called Annalen der Physik. The concept of peer-review only goes back a few hundred years. The others are irrelevant. People should do that research, but nobody can research everything. And it takes a LOT of research to actually understand what in the heck is going on - which most people 1) don't have any idea how to do, 2) don't have time to do well since it's a full time job, and 3) have no interest in doing.
Really? According to the science historian and physicist Daniel Kennerfick, Einstein published 300 scientific papers in his whole life and only one of them was was subject to peer reviewed in the journal of physical review in 1936 and the paper was about gravitational waves. I will look at Annalen der Physik. I think that peer reviewed papers, at least when it comes to publish scientific papers, will become irrelevant as arxiv.org gains more and more with scientists who are not able to publish
Why are the others irrelevant? Galileo and newton's contributions to science is just as important if NOT more important than Einstein's contribution to the advancement of science because they established the foundation for science and one of them ignited the scientific revolution. So why whether or not one of them publishing in a peer reviewed journal is not important.The intelligentsia at the time I think put galileo in house arrest for questioning their model of the universe.
@Pentazoid111 I didn't say their contributions were irrelevant; only their method of publishing with reference to this discussion. There was a lot of stuff published in those days, much of it utter crap - but it was taken seriously by other researchers, because people who do research for a living don't have time to verify every single detail for themselves. That's why the like peer-review to filter out the crap. A good counter-example would be the Grigori Perelman who published on Arxiv.
You are right, most people don't have time to do the research on their own . However, people should still hold at least a basic understanding of science enough to understand the research of the scientists rather than just blindly accepting a claim made by a scientist despite not understanding the theory or experiment the scientist is proposing. Scientists expressed there disagreements with scientific theories with other scientists, why can't lay people and scientists express their disagreements
@Pentazoid111 No one excepts scientific theories blindly apart from maybe "scientists" from the Discovery Institute as long as one of their own people came up with it. Theories are widely discussed as long as they are of any significance and will be discarded if they don't hold their ground to testing and research from other scientists. None the less you are absolutely right about that people should have a basic understanding of science in order to see what is absolute bullshit and what not.
@Pentazoid111 "People" can and should question scientists, but they should pretend they have a level of understanding that they don't have. In any field you can find the occasional expert who is not a professional. Any random guy might be capable of understanding astrophysics, but not everyone with a telescope *IS* an astrophysicist.
Excellent video, thanks! I really appreciate the Singh quote as well. There appears to be a growing movement (no idea if really growing or just seeming louder) of people arguing that any knee-jerk emotional response to anything is justified as common sense. Also that so-called common sense is the metric by which we weigh ideas. Just watch a Mystical Potatohead video, he uses the term dozens of times no matter the subject he is butchering.
is it common sense that pollution from cars is going to mess up the planet? yes. Therefore you global warming argument does not hold water either.
violentlyhappy1 3 months ago
and while common sense can be demonstrated to be wrong sometimes such as global warming maybe, it is most often correct. You would for example, not put your hand in a fire unprotected for several minutes and not expect to be severly burned. Common sense is not putting a whole bunch of math equations on a chalkboard behind you in videos because it will make you appear pretenious. That is common sense.
violentlyhappy1 3 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 If those had been math eqns, it would be perfectly reasonable as I do quite of bit of math programming and I do a lot of volunteer math tutoring. As it happens, they are not equations; those were notes of plans for "science night" where we (my employer) invites students to the company, along with local scientists (from NASA, NIH, universities, etc.) to demonstrate scientific concepts. For someone with such a vast background you sure are eager to say stupid shit.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
"injecting somebody with viruses and that is going to keep someone from getting sick... that´s not common sense"
well we don´t really do that do we? vaccines are not live viruses, or if they are, they are viruses which can´t infect cells. So your whole argument against common sense is based on misunderstandings..
violentlyhappy1 3 months ago
@violentlyhappy1
1. I did not say that; Simon Singh said it and I read it.
2. He's right. Just google: Live Virus Smallpox Vaccine
Now, pull you're head out of your backside and quit pretending like you know something. It's obvious you're full of crap.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend "live virus smallpox vaccine"
By live virus what they mean is live attenuated virus. Live attenuated means crucial parts of the DNA of the virus is removed, or the bacteria (or virus) is otherwise altered through infecting it with a vector, which makes it impossible for the virus to be infectious in the cells of the body or cause illness in a human host. It is live, but can´t infect cells. If you put it that way, it would be common sense.
violentlyhappy1 3 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 I know what a live attenuated virus is; and apparently so does Simon Singh, meaning he wasn't wrong.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend yes he was. Because he said, it is not common sense to say you prevent diseases by infecting the body with a live virus, but he leaves out the crucial part, which is that it is a live virus which can´t actually infect or harm the body. Therefore, if you put it that way, it would not be contrary to common sense.
violentlyhappy1 3 months ago
@violentlyhappy1 No he wasn't. He wasn't writing a scientific treatise. He was expressing a fundamental issue with people misunderstanding science. There are people who say attenuated or not, they don't want viruses injected in them. He's saying it's counter-intuitive, but it works. You're just making shit up to justify having said something false and stupid.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend "there are people...."
yes, but they are not the majority by any means, nor is injecting a virus which can´t actuially infect you against common sense, therefore what this has to do with common sense is beyond me. Actually scrap that, it has nothing to do with common sense. This would be an example of a non sequitur argument.
violentlyhappy1 3 months ago
Common sense refers to social and interpersonal intelligence, which is scientifically demonstrable form of intelligence in psychology, but it is not measured by standard intelligence exams like the WAIS:
violentlyhappy1 3 months ago
Common sense is for example to not walk with your wallet in your hand in a high crime area.
violentlyhappy1 3 months ago
Common sense would be not to touch an electric cable while standing in a pool of water. In that regards common sense are things which are inherently known by most people, which people do not need to demonstrate to someone, because it is assumed most people already know it.
violentlyhappy1 3 months ago
I would agree in terms of scientific analysis "common sense" can be a hazard. If what one means is instinctual conclusions. But if we are talking about "common sense" in terms of an analytical process using critical thinking..then I think it's highly important. And really the true definition. Look up Chomsky talking about "Cartesian common sense".
doublestrokeroll 1 year ago
I would say that "common sense" is not innate, but describes an expectation of knowledge one should have at a given age. For example, when one is the product of good parenting, one should know by age 9 or 10 (and hopefully well before then) it is a matter of common sense that one doesn't stand on a wet bathroom floor while using the hair dryer.
Torwyn11 1 year ago
Awesome video!
RosieDesire 1 year ago
I can't count the number of times I've been called arrogant simply because I've questioned people's reliance on "common sense". I've also noticed that this is usually followed with a "why do you have to argue about this?" or a change in subject.
Probably one of the stupidest thing I've had someone say to me when I was unsure of something was "Use your common sense". What this really means is "Stop thinking and just do what everyone else does".
You're definitely not the only one.
supermagicmilk 1 year ago
Ahhh yes, one of my favorite sayings is "Common sense has never been less common"
Great vid! And interesting point on the bit about fighting against common sense. I'm not sure I've really thought about it from that perspective before, so thanks!
ThatOneQuestion 1 year ago
One of my favorite examples is The Monty Hall Problem (Google it).
Everyone's "common sense" tells them switching doors gives the same odds when in fact you DOUBLE your chance of winning by switching. This "common sense" is so strong that people get angry when told they are wrong. The thing is that your brain is solving a different problem which is very similar.
The Monty Hall Problem by YouTuber niansenx
/watch?v=mhlc7peGlGg
---
WarmWeatherGuy 1 year ago
@WarmWeatherGuy I like that one, too. I wrote an explanation of it and a program to solve it some decades back. Now at reocities athens slash 8994
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend I found it at reocities. com/Athens/8994/gameshow. html
I remember when I first saw the problem (on TV) I figured it was 50/50 and would not matter if you switched. When the person told me I was wrong I hit pause and ran over to my desk and did the probability tree and found out I was wrong. It took me 2 weeks to figure out why my brain failed me. It was solving the problem where the host randomly picked one of the 2 other doors and just happened to not pick the car.
WarmWeatherGuy 1 year ago
I don't think that people should trust scientists just because they are scientists. I think that people should engaged in their own scientific inquiry and do there own science research rather than succumb to the appeal of authority fallacy. Scientists are human beings just like every other person and they can let greed and corruption get in the way of scientific progress. Nobel laureate physicist johannes stark once claimed that Einstein's theory of Relativity was pseudo jewish science.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 If we're going to refute scientists, we need to make sure we've done as much study as they have. The primary fallacy that most people make is that they think whatever bit of silly "research" they have done on a subject is profound. Of course scientists are subject to the same biases that all humans are subject to - but they have a way of digging out of their wholes called the scientific method and peer review.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
I am arguing that people should not trust scientists in the same way that people used to trust their priests for all knowledge in medieval europe. People should look into to the research of the scientists and the research of the opposing scientists and then engaged in their own scientific research. TThere is no reason why the lay person can't apply the scientific method in their own research. Einstein , Newton, Galileo never published there scientific papers in peer reviewed journals.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 Einstein did publish in a peer-reviewed journal called Annalen der Physik. The concept of peer-review only goes back a few hundred years. The others are irrelevant. People should do that research, but nobody can research everything. And it takes a LOT of research to actually understand what in the heck is going on - which most people 1) don't have any idea how to do, 2) don't have time to do well since it's a full time job, and 3) have no interest in doing.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
Really? According to the science historian and physicist Daniel Kennerfick, Einstein published 300 scientific papers in his whole life and only one of them was was subject to peer reviewed in the journal of physical review in 1936 and the paper was about gravitational waves. I will look at Annalen der Physik. I think that peer reviewed papers, at least when it comes to publish scientific papers, will become irrelevant as arxiv.org gains more and more with scientists who are not able to publish
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 Perhaps ADP was not peer reviewed back then. Now it is. In any case, all of these guys would have passed peer review.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
Why are the others irrelevant? Galileo and newton's contributions to science is just as important if NOT more important than Einstein's contribution to the advancement of science because they established the foundation for science and one of them ignited the scientific revolution. So why whether or not one of them publishing in a peer reviewed journal is not important.The intelligentsia at the time I think put galileo in house arrest for questioning their model of the universe.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 I didn't say their contributions were irrelevant; only their method of publishing with reference to this discussion. There was a lot of stuff published in those days, much of it utter crap - but it was taken seriously by other researchers, because people who do research for a living don't have time to verify every single detail for themselves. That's why the like peer-review to filter out the crap. A good counter-example would be the Grigori Perelman who published on Arxiv.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
You are right, most people don't have time to do the research on their own . However, people should still hold at least a basic understanding of science enough to understand the research of the scientists rather than just blindly accepting a claim made by a scientist despite not understanding the theory or experiment the scientist is proposing. Scientists expressed there disagreements with scientific theories with other scientists, why can't lay people and scientists express their disagreements
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 No one excepts scientific theories blindly apart from maybe "scientists" from the Discovery Institute as long as one of their own people came up with it. Theories are widely discussed as long as they are of any significance and will be discarded if they don't hold their ground to testing and research from other scientists. None the less you are absolutely right about that people should have a basic understanding of science in order to see what is absolute bullshit and what not.
p3st0lino 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111 "People" can and should question scientists, but they should pretend they have a level of understanding that they don't have. In any field you can find the occasional expert who is not a professional. Any random guy might be capable of understanding astrophysics, but not everyone with a telescope *IS* an astrophysicist.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
We need to change common sense :), make it smarter!
sciencemile 1 year ago
truth
serioush 1 year ago
Excellent video, thanks! I really appreciate the Singh quote as well. There appears to be a growing movement (no idea if really growing or just seeming louder) of people arguing that any knee-jerk emotional response to anything is justified as common sense. Also that so-called common sense is the metric by which we weigh ideas. Just watch a Mystical Potatohead video, he uses the term dozens of times no matter the subject he is butchering.
LithodidMan 1 year ago
@LithodidMan Thanks for the comment. Means a lot coming from you. Mystical Potatohead is a perfect example of why I came to doubt Common Sense.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago