Common Nonsense

avatar

Reality is under no obligation to behave in a way that conforms to our intuition. Therefore, a lot of things we percieve to be "common sense" are in fact nonsensical. It's not common sense to think that a feather and a brick fall to the earth at the same speed under the force of gravity, but it is the reality.


puzzle-small.jpg
Image by geralt - source: Pixabay

Even Einstein's theories of relativity were resisted because of our over reliance on "common sense":

Einstein's theories of relativity were initially resisted, even by the scientific community, because they defied common sense. They seemed to belong more in the realm of science fiction than reality, until they were later verified by scientific observations. Our modern Global Positioning System (GPS) now uses Einstein's relativity theories. This initial resistance may have led Einstein to later say that "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen".
source: The Logical Place

The appeal to common sense increases in weight when the suggested explanation supports previously held convictions, as illustrated by Einstein's words, and is often used in debates. But it's a fallacy, the "common sense fallacy" in fact. It relies on a vague notion of "obviousness", something that "speaks for itself", or "what's there for all to see". As you may have noticed, none of these are supported by actual reasoning, let alone evidence. Common sense tells us the earth is flat, as we see ourselves walking on a flat plane, and see the Sun, Moon and stars revolving around us; common sense also tells us we're the center of the universe, a belief we've held for centuries, and unfortunately some still do.

It takes a conscious effort to not fall for the common sense fallacy, to never take explanations or arguments for granted, just because they agree with your previously held convictions. On scales larger than the individual it's also interesting to try to figure out how some convictions have become so wide-spread. How did Islam, Christianity and Judaeism become world religions? There was a time when no one had ever heard about Abraham, Jesus or Muhammad. Many of us now believe that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism, and I'm sure there was a time when people believed that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of their particular religion.

Never trust an argument or explanation that lacks any evidence in reality but instead is made out to be "obvious". It's obvious that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west. But it's not true, it's not reality. In reality the earths spins around its axis, creating the appearance that the hot glowing ball rises above one horizon of a flat planet and sets below the opposite horizon of a flat planet. What's real is not determined by our individual observations and logic alone. What's real need to be reasoned and explanations need to be tested against reality.

The reverse is also true; common sense can't be used to dismiss a proposition out of hand. It isn't enough to determine if something's true and it isn't enough to determine if something's not true. I'll use the creationists again to clarify; they'll invoke what's called the junkyard tornado, the notion of a "tornado sweeping through a junkyard to assemble a Boeing 747", to decry abiogenesis and evolution. It's common sense that a tornado can't assemble an airplane, therefore abiogenesis and evolution must be false.

We are not rational or sensical creatures by nature. Most of the time we don't reason or test our convictions against reality. Instead, everything we think we know, everything that's common sense to us, is learned through education and socialization. What's commomn sense to me might not be common sense to someone else. Therefore we need to test our convictions against reality. In the end, an appeal to common sense is indicative of personal bias. It's hard to let go of convictions that have been built over the course of one's life, but when confronted with facts and evidence it's ridiculous to still hold on to them, for it then becomes common nonsense.


FLAT EARTH APPEAL TO COMMON SENSE AND EVIDENCE.


Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy!


wave-13 divider odrau steem

Recent articles you might be interested in:

Latest article >>>>>>>>>>>Tax Wealth!
Anti-FreedomTriune Brain Lullaby
Fusion FutureMemento Mori
Freedom ConfusionFree Speech Iron Man

wave-13 divider odrau steem

Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.



0
0
0.000
8 comments
avatar
(Edited)

A feather and brick do not fall at the same rate on a planet with atmosphere.

The primary opposition to relativity came from a scientific community that thought Newtonian physics reigned supreme at every level of physics. Many of Einstein's thought experiments involved attacking the problems that Newtonian physics was unable to resolve with common sense.

BTW, if you studied the history of logic, you would find academic history is filled with cases of pretentious snits in the ruling class who had deep comtempt for the common.

The assumption that elitists are automatically right is as much a fallacy that commoners are automatically wrong.

As for your snide poke at Capitalism ... I would like you to answer a big question: Who is the father of modern Capitalism?

I will give you a hint. The guy who created the ideology called capitalism was a pretentious snit who had a deep contempt for commoners.

0
0
0.000
avatar

A feather and brick do not fall at the same rate on a planet with atmosphere.

Which is why I explicitly specified "under the force of gravity".

BTW, if you studied the history of logic...

I didn't. Did you?

The assumption that elitists are automatically right is as much a fallacy that commoners are automatically wrong.

Agreed.

Who is the father of modern Capitalism?

Unfortunately I also didn't study the history of capitalism, but the answer to that question depends on a lot of things. What is "modern"? What is "capitalism"? When does capitalism start? Is it with trade, and wealth gathered by merchants (mercantilism), enclosure, industrialization? Opinions vary. It's hard to argue though that with industrialization and the division of labor capitalism settled as the predominant political economic system. The easy answer is Adam Smith. And I agree that he and his contemporary peers were all pretentious snits who collectively launched us into the age of capitalist liberalism.

To be fair, I have no clue what you want to say here. I guess that's on me, not having studied the history of logic and capitalism and all... ;-)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I studied the history of Mathematics. When I realized that all of mathematics can be reduces to logic, I then engaged in a detailed study of the history of mathematics.

I decided one day to also research the history of Conservatism and Capitalism.

I was really astonished by what I found. But it makes sense after reading Machiavelli and Hegel.

The father of Capitalism is .... are you ready .... Karl Marx.

Marx realized that the best way to win a war is to define the battleground. Marx wanted to raise people in a revolution. So, the way to accomplish the task is to define the position of the opposition.

Mark wrote a three volume tome called Das Kapital.

Conservatives, being a bunch of half witted fools, took to defending Marx's definition of capitalism.

The fact that Marx defined capitalism explains why both capitalism and anti-capitalism leads society to ruin.

You can prove that Marx is the father of capitalism by tracing the citations and ngrams related to capitalism.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you for your witness vote!
Have a !BEER on me!
To Opt-Out of my witness beer program just comment STOP below

0
0
0.000
avatar

Criticizing the results of capitalism makes one its father..? Oh, I haven't studied computational linguistics; best to get that out of the way as well. N-grams aside, I hope you can see the folly of making Marx the father of capitalism. In fact it's pointless, useless and fruitless to try and make anyone the exclusive father, founder, inventor or whatever of capitalism; like I said before, opinions will differ. Now personally I think Marx did have a good definition of capitalism and together with Engels proved that it's just another iteration of the class struggle that started in the Neolithic age, right after we were able to produce more than we need to survive. Only with the advent of surplus production the hoarding of surplus wealth and concentration of surplus power became a reality, a reality we've stuck with ever since. But that's another discussion.

The fact that Marx defined capitalism explains why both capitalism and anti-capitalism leads society to ruin.

Explanation needed. Anti-anything is a definition for nothing. What's certain though is that capitalism will end someday. The only question is if that next thing will be yet another variant of hoarding. Kings, Emperors, Lords and Capitalists are all the same in that they all have immense power based on their material wealth. Socialism is nothing more than extending democracy into the realm of the material. That's my version of anti-capitalism. And if that leads society to ruin, well, at least we'll have done that democratically.

0
0
0.000
avatar

No, the game of defining the opposition makes Marx the father of capitalism.

Marx was using the tools of modern logic (with modern logic refering the construction of Kant, Hegel and a large number of other modern philosophers).

Essentially Marx was trying to set up a thesis-antithesis conflict that would result in a revolution that would create a catharsis called communism.

The really funny thing about Marx is that Marx never defined communism.

He spent most of his career defining capitalism. He never defined communism beyond a few vague references to a future utopia.

BTW the game of politicians defining their opposition is common. Look at Fox News and MSNBC. Both networks spend the bulk of their time defining their opposition.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!

Please consider delegating to the @stemsocial account (85% of the curation rewards are returned).

You may also include @stemsocial as a beneficiary of the rewards of this post to get a stronger support. 
 

0
0
0.000