Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
"Everything Is Obvious". -- Great book.
- Thread starter EnderJE
- Start date
looks somewhat intriguing, read the New York Times review on it.
The author defines common sense as a set of perceptions that are generally held by a group or area with similar background and information.How does the author define "common sense"?
There's often a problem when people try to compare/contrast the concrete versus the abstract. *changes meaning to fit individual situation*
The "problem" is when you try to apply what works for a microcosm to a much larger scale or when you remove rationale / logic from the decision making process and put more emotion into it.
For example, centrally planned economies / events have generally failed; yet, when you look (generally) at government programs or businesses they continue the method of central planning because "common sense" says that centrally planning anything is better then the chaos that will occur when each dispersed group is allowed to work for themselves.
In another example, the death penalty has (generally) shown no deterrent against violent crimes; yet common sense sense is that the death penalty should be kept around because it's perceived to be cheaper to kill someone then to let them live and be a burden on society (not realizing that killing someone -- with the massive appeals -- is occasionally more expensive).
The most intriguing part is that when you challenge a person's view of common sense, the person who is asking the question is branded a fool with no common sense (to help reduce the discussion).
Just a little difference of opinion over semantics:
I think there is a huge difference between "common sense" (which I believe to be a natural human trait that cannot be taught, although not every human possesses this trait) and "commonly held beliefs" (which I believe to be something you learn and are cultural).
Common sense is an individual instinctively knowing "Fire burn no touch."
Commonly held beliefs, on the other hand, can be societal, i.e., the death penalty keeps the number of potential serial killers down to a manageable level.
I think there is a huge difference between "common sense" (which I believe to be a natural human trait that cannot be taught, although not every human possesses this trait) and "commonly held beliefs" (which I believe to be something you learn and are cultural).
Common sense is an individual instinctively knowing "Fire burn no touch."
Commonly held beliefs, on the other hand, can be societal, i.e., the death penalty keeps the number of potential serial killers down to a manageable level.
Cut/paste here please.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/b...ce-you-know-the-answer-by-duncan-j-watts.html
The "fire burns" people might only be another societal division because there is a (much smaller) "I like death by fire / suicide" group.
CoBra666
Broken
i think common sense is only common to that individual. we were all raised differently and therefor common is only relative. my buddy is a nano technologist and he uses his calculator to determine the correct math to torque a tire on with long ass mathematical equations, a good 5 minutes of math id say. like literally pulls out a calculator, and to him that is common sense. to some its just to call a mechanic and not risk doing it wrong. i grew up on a farm tinkering with everything, i just torque it on with the little 4 way wrench. have no idea how tight but it always works. thats my common sense.
pretty elaborate way of calling yourself a retard
nimbus
New member
i'm surprised that anybody who would consider buying that book doesn't already know better
the scientific method can't be applied to things dictated by morals, opinions, social constructs etc. this is where "common sense" and sensitivity come in. common sense is exactly as described - forming your sensitivities from the morals and social constructs around you to approach an issue.
the scientific method is used for discovery and establishing truth.
and besides even if you do apply as a means of replacing common sense, you arnt really replacing common sense.
this is what wikipedia says:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[13]
its not fucking possible to go through those steps without relying on some common sense
sounds like a dumb fucking book
the scientific method is used for discovery and establishing truth.
and besides even if you do apply as a means of replacing common sense, you arnt really replacing common sense.
this is what wikipedia says:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[13]
its not fucking possible to go through those steps without relying on some common sense
sounds like a dumb fucking book
I disagree.
The scientific method can be put to solve a problem.
However, the tester must realize that they might not have captured all the factors that comprise a problem. For example, I would expect a marketing executive would test a small campaign on a similar population microcosm before putting in a large metropolitan.
That said, I've also seen marketing executives commit to millions of dollars in failed campaigns without testing them first because common sense said that they should work for a given population.
i would argue its common sense to test their methods on a smaller scale before investing lots of money on a greater scale.
but even if you attribute that thought process to scientific method, you are using the method to establish the success of a campaign - see if it works.
i guess i should read the book before talking shit, but i dont consider that using the scientific method to "solve a social problems." it would be more to test a business model or ad campaign
taking unnecessary and impulsive risks makes you a shitty business man anyways.
The problem that I really liked was the one about urban poverty and the problem of teaching.
People have tried things here and there and people are using their common sense to solve it (ie give them more money) rather then try to use other methods (from other places) to see if they work. I'm not saying that by making schools more competitive will work (because there are other social factors that differentiate Denmark schools with US schools) but it's got to be better then just giving more money with no returns (to date).
Similar threads
