What happens when common sense clashes with science?
A lot of gardening information is based on information provided by others. This mostly comes from past experience and common sense. But past experience is largely based on previous common sense. Great, great granddad thought double digging made sense, he tried it, it worked – whatever that means – and it has been passed down through the ages.
What happens when new science provides facts that disagrees with common sense? What do we do?
What is Common Sense?
We talk about it, we use the term, and we rely on it to get through life, but do we know what it is?
Webster defines it as, “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” This sounds good, but if the conclusion reached is wrong, is it still sound judgement? If a conclusion is reached that ignores the facts is it still common sense?
Another definition is, “sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge or training.” So if you have had some training in gardening you can no longer have common sense about it?
Wikipedia says, “sound practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge that is shared by (“common to”) nearly all people.” What this means is that you can’t exhibit superior or inferior common sense. It is only common sense if the majority agree.
I’d like to submit that common sense doesn’t really exist. Each of us possesses a level of ‘sense’ but certainly as adults, it’s not common among us. When evaluating a situation we all bring different knowledge, past experiences, and beliefs to the problem. To this we add the sense part, which is really an ability to solve problems. We take all of the current and past information, apply problem solving and reach a conclusion.
Once we have solved the problem, we turn around, look back at the process and say “that makes sense”.
Is Common Sense Really Common?
Do eggshells decompose in the garden?
Most gardening information says yes. So gardeners add them to compost bins and in no time at all, the shells seem to disappear. After all, if they didn’t, gardeners would end up with piles of shells in their fields.
The conclusion that eggshells decompose makes perfect sense, based on these facts.
As a chemist, I brought new facts to the table – at least to my table. I understood that calcium compounds are tough and don’t dissolve easily. Eggshells are similar to teeth and bones which don’t decompose any time soon.
By adding this additional fact, the common sense solution suggests eggshells don’t decompose. Instead they are fragile and probably break into smaller and smaller pieces until we can’t see them.
Since common sense depends very much on knowledge and beliefs, everyone will reach different common sense conclusions. Unless we all have the same facts, it is not very common.
Not that long ago, common knowledge led everyone to conclude the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. There was agreement. Then science produced more facts and we went through a time where only some people believed, and eventually enough science was produced that convinced most people that the Earth is round and that we circle the Sun.
What I find hard to believe is that today 1 in 5 American adults still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. The numbers are the same in Germany and Great Britain.
Interestingly, young children believe the earth is flat and to them that is just common sense and it is difficult to get them to change their mind on this. Over time they are exposed to more and more facts and slowly they begin to accept the idea of a round earth.
Science changes common sense.
Common Sense and Problem Solving
One of my all time favorite puzzles is the two piece pyramid. Two identical pieces that are put together to form a pyramid – what could be simpler.
I first worked on this puzzle in my teens, at a friends house and I couldn’t solve it. Years later I bought my own and solved it in 30 seconds. Over the years I have watched many people struggle with it and have come to understand why it is so difficult to solve.
Most people do what I did at my first attempt. It is such a simple puzzle that it has to be easy, so we just use brute force and try each combination until we solve it. In my second try, I used logic and the solution was automatic.
Two different ways to solve the same problem. We all have different problem solving skills, but one thing is clear, humans are not good problem solvers. Most people don’t even try and just want answers, preferably simple ones. Few people are able to think out of the box.
Common sense depends very much on problem solving skills. If we are not good at solving problems, we should not expect to be able to reach common sense conclusions.
Common Sense and Priorities
Developing a common sense solution is really an exercise in problem solving, but each of us approaches problems differently. There is no accepted right way to do this, and most of us could not even describe the process we use. Our minds are able to bring together numerous facts, feelings, and beliefs and reach a conclusion – it just kind of happens.
A big part of this process requires us to prioritize each element. Is our belief more important than a scientific fact? If you strongly believe eggshells decompose and I show you evidence that they don’t – which of these takes priority? What if 10 scientists tell you they don’t decompose? Does that change the priority. At what point do the facts change your beliefs? This will be different for each of us.
Personal experiences or experiences from someone you trust, will be given a higher priority than experiences from a stranger, or scientific facts from an unknown expert.
Quantity matters and is one reason people believe so much nonsense on the internet. Once you have seen a so-called fact a hundred times you start believing it. How can it not be true when so many say it is?
You might be familiar with the National Enquirer, which publishes sensational garbage. Some people read the newspaper as a joke, but others accept the stories as being facts. Different folks set different priorities on their source of information.
There is no established way to prioritize this information. All of the information enters our brain, gets jumbled around and we end up with a common sense solution; at least one that is common sense to us. The lack of organised processing is one reason that the solution is rarely the true picture.
Take the case of creationism and evolution.
Before Darwin introduced his Origin of the Species, creationism was certainly the belief of the day. In fact Darwin was quite worried about introducing his theory because he knew it went against everything people believed. Anyone using common sense in those days agreed with creationism.
Fast forward 150 years and thousands of scientific reports that support evolution and still 30% of people in the US believe in creationism. The numbers are less in Europe, but still significant. This group puts a higher priority on their beliefs, allowing them to ignore the facts.
There is another complexity here. I have fairly good knowledge in biology, biochemistry and genetics, making it easy for me to understand natural selection. I am therefore more willing to accept the concept – it makes sense to me because of my specialized knowledge. The general public does not have this knowledge so they are more likely to reject the science because they don’t understand it, or they will accept it on blind faith.
When we don’t understand facts, we are less likely to give them a high priority, which is a real problem for science.
Science is Process Driven
Unlike our common sense process, science is a very structured process. Hypotheses are formed, experiments are designed to prove the hypothesis, results are gathered and analyzed and published for review. Others repeat the work and critique the process. In the long run, science is self-correcting and ends up with a set of accepted facts.
Common sense uses feelings while science uses measurements. Common sense relies heavily on single point observations while science uses controls to further ensure correctness. Even setting priorities is mostly a controlled process in science.
At times science may seem chaotic to general public, but it is highly structured to ensure correct data. The process of developing common sense opinions is anything but structured. This difference is significant and should make a big difference when we prioritize facts, but it rarely does.
Common Sense Meets Science
What happens when common sense meets science?
There are two possible scenarios. Either the two support each other and reach the same conclusion, or they don’t.
When you hear scientific facts that support your common sense conclusions, you embrace them. They are essentially a pat on the back for correctly solving a problem. The facts support your beliefs and make them even stronger.
However, when the science does not support your solution, you have to resolve the conflict in your mind. Do you accept the facts and change your solution, or do you give the facts a very low priority and let other factors control your common sense?
If you give a very low priority, your solution will not change. When Darwin first presented the idea of evolution, the general public rejected the idea because it was just too big a leap to change their belief system and they didn’t understand the science.
Dismissing facts is a very common response to new data.
As the mountain of facts grow, we each reach a point where we are forced to change our common sense opinion. That point is different for everyone because everyone has different knowledge, experience and problem solving skills.
Climate change is a good example. Twenty years ago few people accepted the concept. The facts flew in the face of everything we know about a stable earth – OK it is not that stable, but we think it is. But the data kept piling up. Study after study pointed in the same direction. In the past few years something important happened. The predicted severe weather started hitting the earth. This made things more real and it affected feelings. It became easier and easier for us to accept our role in climate change.
Just this week, a collection of 11,000 scientists from 153 countries, signed a declaration of climate emergency, but even that won’t convince everyone.
Pseudoscience is Not Science
In this discussion it is important to understand the difference between pseudoscience and real science. Unfortunately it is very easy to throw some numbers together and make any claim you want. These pseudofacts are gobbled up by people when they match their belief system.
Homeopathy is defined as taking a real working drug and diluting it over and over again until there is nothing left in each bottle. Proponents of this medicine even claim that the more you dilute the drug, the more effective it becomes.
This is complete nonsense no matter what kind of logic or science you use to analyze the idea and yet this is a six billion dollar industry which is growing rapidly. Testing by science has also found no basis for homeopathy.
The general public has a hard time differentiating between science and pseudoscience, which leads them to be more suspicious of real science.
The general public is poorly equipped to evaluate scientific facts.
Logical vs Emotional Arguments
Most hotly contested subjects have two clear sides. One side uses facts and figures to make their case. They prioritize science over feelings. The other side uses emotional arguments. They either don’t believe the facts or they prioritize feelings over facts.
Next time you see or hear a discussion about GMO, Roundup, abortion, religion, immigration or any other hot topic, put your own biases aside and just watch how the discussion unfolds. You will clearly see that one side is fact based and the other is emotion based. One side has prioritized science and facts, while the other side prioritizes beliefs and experience.
Common Sense Is Only a Tool
We need to use common sense in new situations or where we need to solve new problems which lack data. It is both useful and necessary. But it is a tool that should only be used in cases were we do not have good facts, which is quite common in gardening.
As the quality of facts increase we have to abandon common sense and start listening to the science.
Science has given us cars, homes, new food types, medicines, electronics, paper and the list goes on and on. Because common sense is neither common nor sensical, it has not given us very much except for a way to survive until more facts come along.
Next time you are having a discussion and someone tries to qualify their position by saying, “that’s just common sense”, you can tell them, “there is no such thing.”
Excellent article, Robert Pavlis! Seriously.
This was an enjoyable post. Thanks!
A couple of thoughts:
1) “Unlike our common sense process, science is a very structured process. Hypotheses are formed, experiments are designed to prove the hypothesis, results are gathered and analyzed and published for review. Others repeat the work and critique the process. In the long run, science is self-correcting and ends up with a set of accepted facts.”
That paragraph can perhaps be more accurately described as: “Science is an accretion of provisional certainties”
2) Some insight into the human mind that drives “common sense” is thoroughly discussed in this book: Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. An excellent read.
No – that is not how the scientific method works. The exploration of hypotheses does not seek to “prove” them but to disprove them. The hypothesis stands until it is disproved. Experiments are designed to “test the hypothesis” – to the point of failure – not to “prove” it. Replication that consistently fails to disprove the hypothesis improves its credibility. It is “common sense” the the converse describes scientific method.
Is this a comment on gardening or politics?
Thanks for this excellent rant.
A bit of both. This blog fights misinformation about gardening, and this post looks at why so many people believe myths, when in fact more knowledge is available.
Sorry, I don’t buy that “1 in 5 Americans believe the Sun goes round the earth” – I am not aware of a single person of my acquaintance that has this believe – common sense (for me) says that so called statistic is rubbish.
I gave you the reference – find one that disputes the fact.
Thoughtful article. Are there, though, “scientific facts”? I wonder if that is not a scientist wanting to believe he has a tool for correct thinking that others lack. A philosopher might argue there are only facts. We can use experiment to determine them (the scientific method), or a priori reasoning (mathematics comes to mind), or experience (where common sense comes in). If I hit my thumb with a hammer it hurts. Living with that knowledge guiding me in how I use a hammer is only common sense.
You obviously are not a man of Gods Word. Creationism vs evolution is quite a question indeed. However I submit to you there are significant areas in life that we do need to apply FAITH and Gods Word is most definitely the area. 1 Corinthians 1:27 states “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. The things of God are looked upon as weaknesses but there is an after life and I chose to spend it with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ over evolution and ultimate darkness. Thank you, John LARSEN, Burlington, IA and an avid gardener.
In regard to your comment about homeopathy I can tell you that suffering from enlarged prostate i am taking a homeopathic remedy. When I take it regularly I have no symptoms when i forget they return and i walk to the bathroom several times a night when i take it the symptoms disappear. You may call it quackery however there was a time people swore the earth was flat.
I am curious to see if epigenetics may have something to do with homeopathy effects. Some scientists are exploring it.
I am glad to have been introduced to homeopathy for my issues and i do not have to worry about the side effects of some pharmaceuticals prescribed to control prostate enlargement
Find yourself a Urologist and have that trained practitioner who understands the science and the disease walk with you along the path you have chosen. A good one will agree to that – maybe contrary to what his training and legal liability insurer tells him.
But don’t leave this disease to a chat with someone who makes money from selling you the medication you are using. But if you have conducted long and intensive studies into the meds used for managing diseases of the prostate, then I guess you are your own navigator and pilot and your destination is in your own hands.
Excellent
Robert,
You know you have opened a can of worms! I enjoy your article very much and agree that, often, what we think we know for fact is just hearsay. However, I think you are placing Science into the position of god. We humans seem to need a god and it seems that science is yours.
Common Sense is “common” because it is based on emperical experience instead of specialized training or study. It can be very valuable and it is what helps through life in this very complex world we find ourselves in. Thinking people change their minds when presented with indisputable facts and their common sense view of the world changes. It happens every day for each one of us.
As you state, it is no common sense that the climate is changing and that humans are the primary cause. But, is it really true? It must be because all of the gatekeepers of truth keep telling us it is so. I am amazed at how many people I talk with who believe that if they take down a tree, they are somehow contributing to climate change (I am an Arborist). This is their common sense, based on the science that they are fed daily from the mass media, etc.
It has always been common sense to know that the climate is changing. It is always changing. Even in a person’s lifetime, there are 20-25 year cycles of hot and dry/cold and wet. It snowed in New England in June 1816. We have had severe droughts in Texas in the 1930’s, 1950’s, 1980’s, 2010. We have also had extreme wet years in between. It is a matter of record in my lifetime. The climate changes. I learned in grade school of the fern fossils found in the artic regions. We learned about the ice ages when much of North America was covered in ice. So, it is common sense to understand that the climate changes. Science is only now starting to understand a little of the complexities of the geological/atronomical systems that drive the climate changes.
Same goes for creationism. As we look at the physical and biological world, it strikes us as being incredibly complex. More complex than we can understand, even with all of our scientific knowledge and instrumentation. We can’t create life, but only observe it. It is common sense to say that there must be a designer behind these incredibly complex systems. Time and natural selection don’t explain it. Now, you might say that I am biased, and that it true. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and that the “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”. However, one who does not believe that believes that Time and Chance answer everything. Both are systems of faith.
There are scientists (folks with specialized training) who disagree with the 11,000 who signed the emergency climate declaration. There are scientist who disagree with Darwin, and all of his scientific descendants, on a scientific basis.
We must be careful that we don’t make Science our god. It is not infallable and, at the core, it is humans, with all of their limitations, trying to describe and understand the incredibly complex world and universe.
Thank you for a great article and I really appreciate everything you produce in writing. Every article is very helpful.
science is god – sounds like another article topic ?
Re: “There are scientist who disagree with Darwin, and all of his scientific descendants, on a scientific basis”. I am sure there are scientists that disagree with Darwin, but not on a scientific basis. To disagree on scientific basis they would need to provide compelling evidence to disprove most of the scientific facts we have on the topic. That might have been possible 100 years ago, but the science for Darwin is now too great.
I have looked into the “scientist disagreeing with Darwin.”The disagreementis not about Darwin’s theory per se but about the mechanism for changes, which he did not address, and the speed with which changes might occur. So yes, Darwin’s theory did and still does hold up to scientific evaluation.
The problem is the understanding people have about the word “theory.” A theory is proven when there’s sufficient data to support it. Many people think that the word “theory” means that the truth is still up for grabs.
Theories are just that – theories. They are not axioms. They are guesses and subject to ongoing testing – they stand until they fail. Try Qantum Theory. Try the theory of the speed of light. Try the theories around the nature of light – particle or wave. Newtonian physics is under examination. Gravity is a theory – and black holes put it to the test.
Theories are tested – not proven. When a theory is re-tested and passed, it is still a theory. A well-test theory perhaps.
Now let’s start on “truth” 🙂
I suppose there is some “tongue-in-cheek” meaning to your refusal to accept the mere concept of common sense. Just the same you can argue all day that there is nothing common about common sense and other oblique takes on this but the fact is that: It makes sense to most folks that you should not spit in the wind. Maybe YOU think this is still a good idea?! The problem in your article, I believe, is simply that you chose the wrong metaphor in a subtle attempt to make a case against creationism and climate change deniers.
Here is a way for YOU to think “out of the box”. . . Maybe the creationism theory is real and at the same time natural selection? Consider: God created the world and all in it and it is HIS hand which causes the strong to survive. It was built into the cake from the start. Are there other ways in which both “theories” could be true? You bet. Think about it.
As to climate change: Yep, it is hard to deny these days that the climate is warmer and perhaps even significantly over the last 100 years. Is there enough data to prove it? Maybe. So what. All the money in the world is not likely to effect enough change to turn the thermometer back. So, why bankrupt everyone in Developed countries in an attempt to do so when the main producer of greenhouse gases is Asia– developing countries? They remain are arch-rivals both economically and politically and we should gut our economies while they are enriched? Hey, if the world is going to smoke itself, it will do so. It makes sense, common sense, to not prolong the agony.
Actually, I am quite convinced common sense does not exist. If people start to understand and accept this, we may be better able to solve problems.
Makes common sense to me 🙂
– The world is not smoking itself, we are smoking it. The old ‘common sense’ idea that the world will do what it does and we cannot affect it has been thoroughly scientifically refuted.
– A certain amount of warming is already ‘locked in’ by gases we have already emitted, but we can greatly decrease future warming by cutting emissions now.
– Moving to new technologies is actually good for our economy. Renewable energy is one of the fastest areas of job growth in the US, and already employs far more people than work in the coal industry. China is trying to surpass the US economically specifically by pushing electric cars, renewable energy and other new non-fossil fuel based technologies.
– Solutions do not cost ‘all the money in the world.’ Many are actually cheaper than continuing on our current path. They are well researched and documented (see for example the book ‘Drawdown’).
As a grandfather, it is not uncommon for me to want to prevent harm from coming to my 5 grandkids. While we have already made problems they will have to deal with in their lives, that is no excuse for continuing to make those problems worse until my grandkids and your cannot survive them.
The developing countries are not “arch-rivals” – they are just trying to catch up to the standard of living the developed nations enjoy – human activity cannot be a zero sum game, or we are destined for destruction. Why should they be denied? And why should they not be helped to do that as efficiently – ie with the minimum damage to their own environments and ours – as possible. China and India promise reduction in coal burning – just not quickly enough.
As for the world “smoking itself”. I am reminded of the old joke for which the punch line is: “you can’t smoke your kayak and have it too”.
Oooops – you can’t heat your kayak and have it too.