Science and Senses?

[Atticus]

Of course you can start things with some common sense, but it's not the end-all-be-all.

Agree.

Common sense has nothing to do with rationality - common sense is the type of reasoning done by the average person.

Ok, I'm not so sure about the meaning of these words since English isn't my best language, but I think it includes also the naive first impressions, but also the fundamental reasoning, on which logic is based. Science (I think) builds on these, correcting the common sense when it contradicts.

But there's quite a difference between saying that the scientific method is based on common sense, and that the scientific method is tcommon sense.

Ok, I'm saying the former one.

It's been quantified. See [wiki]Philosophy of Science[/wiki]. Of course it isn't a machine - but it is clearly a general set of scholarly methods used in the empirical sciences.

Philosophers of science haven't reached any conclusion there, I think. Now it is perfectly true that when you do standard things, you use some prescribed mathods, but when you're making a new theory, they don't help you very much. The words "scientific method" bugs me exactly for that reason, that they are so prepopperian (if you allow neologism and namedropping).

And since it is an actual subject of Philosophy, I don't really think that it is based on common sense - rigorous treatment of a subject is generally the definition of something that is beyond "common sense".

No, but philosophers also start very often their reasoning from the common sense.

Maybe I'm explaining this thing pretty badly, but my whole point is : If you don't ultimately base the things you do on common sense, you never even get started. The rules of logic or the scientific method aren't things given to us, and they in them selves don't have any justification for them selves. The only way they can be justified is through common sense and reasoning.

Also I was before this saying that common sense and scientific truths don't necessary contradict even if it might seem they do, because they are different "levels" to talk about things.

 

[Gothmog]

Atticus,

while you make an interesting point, I would disagree with a strict interpretation of what you say (as would popper if I may re-name drop).

The only justification that need be considered is quantitative prediction. The rest is metaphysical fluff.

If it turns out that we improve our ability to quantitatively predict various phenomina by postulating that mass is energy, or that time dialates, or that space curves, or by assigning waves the properties of particles - that's what science will do.

The more a scientific theory goes against 'common sense' the longer it will take to be widely accepted that's all.

 

[Atticus]

The only justification that need be considered is quantitative prediction. The rest is metaphysical fluff.

That's true, but on the other hand I think this fact is based on the common sense also, through many stages though.

And another thing: while scientist can claim they deal only with the perceptions, they often want to claim that it is reality. It's like a backup-scheme to use, if somebody start to ask stupid question, but which isn't the exact way that scientist usually think. Same way in mathematics you can always say that you're just playing with the axioms, but the real numers weren't so much examined if they wouldn't have been thought as representing reality in some way. And it isn't a bad thing at all, certainty is too big demand.

 

[punkbass2000]

Dawkins talks about this: our minds are not really designed to comprehend the universe at relativistic speeds or in the micrometer scale.

They're designed to not comprehend them, even.

 

[Gogf]

What you feel when you touch a table is not the nucleus of an atom in the table, but the electron cloud around it. The mutual repulsion between this and an electron cloud in your hand is why the atoms in your hand do not pass through the empty space in the atoms in the table.

 

[nihilistic]

That's true, but on the other hand I think this fact is based on the common sense also, through many stages though.

And another thing: while scientist can claim they deal only with the perceptions, they often want to claim that it is reality. It's like a backup-scheme to use, if somebody start to ask stupid question, but which isn't the exact way that scientist usually think. Same way in mathematics you can always say that you're just playing with the axioms, but the real numers weren't so much examined if they wouldn't have been thought as representing reality in some way. And it isn't a bad thing at all, certainty is too big demand.

Well, since you brought up 'math', 'science', and 'reality', I'd like to point out a very major difference between the math vs. reality relationship and the science vs. reality relationship. It is very simply illustrated as follows:

Science obeys reality. Science is math + empiricism. If an experiment challenges theory you check the experiment and then possibly modify your theory.

Reality obeys mathematics. If you counted 2 piles of 10 rocks each and then placed the two piles together and counted to 19; you do not consider the possibility that perhaps 10 + 10 = 19. It is automatic that you must have counted wrong somewhere.

The difference is that science uses math to generalize results from experiments (experiments of course, come from reality). Mathematics by itself though, does not give a rat's ass about reality. Reality in turn, is bounded by mathematics.

Also, regarding math and "common sense", it is quite easy to swindle someone who isn't mathematically adept and uses only common sense at math. See the Monty Hall Problem, Birthday Paradox, etc.

 

[Fifty]

There's a very interesting article by W.V.O. Quine where he challenges the distinction between analytic (mathy stuff, things grounded in meanings independant of facts about reality) and synthetic (grounded in facts about the world) propositions. It's called "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" if anybody is interested. It isn't idle speculative BS either, Quine is a highly logic-oriented dude firmly in the analytic tradition.

The best reply to it is "In Defense of a Dogma" by two other towering figures in philosophy, H.P. Grice and P.F. Strawson.

I'm not saying I endore either view, but if you read these and think they're just a bunch of BS, then chances are you just don't appreciate them completely, so give them a chance!

 

[Atticus]

I'd like to point out a very major difference between the math vs. reality relationship and the science vs. reality relationship.

I wasn't actually saying that maths and physics have the same relation to reality, just making an analogy: In physics you can claim that you are interested only in perceptions and you postulate energy &c only to more easily descripe events you see. In mathematics you can claim that you are interested only in axioms, not the real piles of stones &c, and all the things you proof is therefore true, since they are only of the form "axioms implicate proposition", and don't exactly say that the axioms would be true. But both these ways (I think) are just something you have in your back pocket against nasty skeptics. When nobody argues against us, we're happy to think that we talk about real things.

And furthermore I said that it isn't a bad thing, since if mathematics was about only the sets and physics about our regularity in our perceptions (and not the properties of reality), nobody would be interested about them. If we lose something in the certainty, it's not that bad thing, since we lose much of certainty already presuming that the shop isn't full of Giant Monsters when we go to shop some milk and bread, and we are actually very happy that way. It's good to think what to say to skeptics, but it doesn't have to be the thing we think normally.

Also, regarding math and "common sense", it is quite easy to swindle someone who isn't mathematically adept and uses only common sense at math. See the Monty Hall Problem, Birthday Paradox, etc.

Monty Hall Problem is very good example, because it's perfectly sound with the common sense. You of course can explain it with conditional probabilitys, but these explanations suck in one aspect: for many people they are just manipulating numbers. Now I don't think that maths can contradict common sense, it's just a matter of how long you have to explain the thing, so I once thought this problem over and here's a perfectly good common sense-proof:

You have three choices one of which is the right one, so you have 1/3 chance to choose the right one and 2/3 to choose a wrong one. Now if you have first chosen the right one, you'll necessarily choose a wrong one when you switch. If you have first chosen a wrong one, you'll necessarily choose the right one when you switch. So the conclusion is: By obeying the rule of swiching your first choice after one wrong cup is removed, your last choice will be the right one exactly when your first choice has been a wrong one and vice versa. Since the probabilities were 2/3 and 1/3 for the first choice tobe wrong/right, this rule makes them 1/3 and 2/3 for the last choice. See, this is perfectly common sense, it isn't just the first thing that crosses your mind.

 

[Bill3000]

Atticus, for the sake of clarity, can you give us the definition of common sense that you are using?

 

[Atticus]

Atticus, for the sake of clarity, can you give us the definition of common sense that you are using?

Glad to, should have done it before actually . Common sense is the every day worldview of the sane people, who might be uneducated, but aren't mentally uncapable. Maybe it's best explained by examples: Common sense says that there are physical objects, they act by some regualarity &c. Common sense says that other people aren't my imagination, other people think and feel, don't just act like they would &c. It might include that the Moon and Sun are smaller than earth, I'm not so sure about that, but it surely includes very much false beliefs. But it also includes some basic deduction, like "moon is smaller, as big as, or bigger than earth, or they are somehow incomparable" or "Every Saturday at 6pm the nearby church rings it bells, and since it's 18 pm and I don't hear the bells, it isn't saturday"+the usual orthebellsareborken&c. It especially includes the principles of reasoning.

You said that common sense would be what average person thinks, but I don't think things like "To say that cows are females is the same thing as to say that females are cows" would be common sense, on the contrary they are against common sense. The example is actually real, you can probably imagine how frustrating the conversation was , and this kind of wierd thinking is surprisingly common (among the adult population too), but I wouldn't call it common sense.