Common Sense Is Worthless in Science

Common sense is lauded as a virtue. But is it really?
Only within the narrow range of experiences we grow up with. It's often more harmful than helpful in the scientific process.

How far should we trust common sense?
When does it steer us wrong?
Why do we find common sense so appealing?

Please feel free to share in the comments your own favorite counter-intuitive scenario that is nevertheless true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_hall_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Common
• Sense
• scientific
• science
• evolution
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• statistics
• Monty
• Hall
• problem
• birthday
• Einstein
• Richard
• Dawkins
• queerer
• than
• we
• can
• suppose

[RoScFan]

@C0nc0rdance or an even better and more down to earth example: the earth going around the sun is totally intuitive to me; or it being spherical; are you kidding me? how many times have i talked with people on the net on the other side of the earth? none of that makes sense unless to think of the earth as round and going around the sun;

i'll tell what though: one thing i really can't imagine is how a photon "sees" the universe…. the entire universe for them is a single surface? ….

[RoScFan]

@C0nc0rdance what if you make you're common sense tailored to the scientific info you've so rounded yourself you're entire life? after watching a documentary a long time about micro fractures in metals that caused a whole fucking train to derail in i think it was Germany i have 0 problems comprehending things like the grand canyon or the sand in the sahara desert being the result of thermal contraction and dilation of rock until it brakes

[akpret]

do we make more decisions in our day to day lives in a lab or without a lab? just curious. i mean then you can tell me how useful this is to the average person. then put aside your bias deciding which is less or more the average type of person, the person watching this video or the person living their lives by this video.

[DeinosDinos]

@rkyeun And when you talk about Crocodile you can also talk about insects like dragonflies, centipedes, or horseshoe crabs whose basic structure hasn't changed in a very long time...I see...

[rkyeun]

@DeinosDinos

The analogy I listed has limits of course, as all analogies do. The presence of other organisms are other marbles in other spots, and the interactions between competitors, predators, and prey are themselves part of the environment and have to be taken into account in that curved surface.

The point is, that crocodilians have been doing the same thing (wait patiently then ambush things at water's edge) for a VERY long time, because that is a very stable well.

[DeinosDinos]

@rkyeun but it seems to me that isolates a single organism out, when in fact all organisms are evolving at once, it seems like the curve is ever-changing, albeit minuscule ones, so the marble is always rolling. I admit I'm not an expert (yet) but that's how I looked at it.

[rkyeun]

"Share with us in the comments your favorite non-intuitive scenario that is nevertheless true."

There is only one electron.

[rkyeun]

@DeinosDinos

If I take an arbitrary curved surface, it can have minimums and maximums, and those minimums and maximums can be local. Let this surface be an analogy for fitness.

A marble placed on this surface will tend to roll downhill. Let this represent an organism evolving to a position of greater fitness. Once the marble finds a well, it will tend to stay there unless the surface landscape changes. If that change pushes it out of its well, it will continue rolling.

[DeinosDinos]

@dave13sci what you're talking about I suppose is the "punctuated equilibrium" model, where animals' evolutionary change is primarily motivated by sudden changes, and barely evolves otherwise. I find the punctuated gradualism more believable, but I'm no expert.

[419Films]

My common sense tells me that this video is very informative. :-)