Common Sense: I Don't Know Too Much ... But I'm Sure I Know Enough
As many readers of this blog (all three of you) well know, I can't resist engaging in the verbal thrust-and-parry of a good argument from time to time. I admit it's usually an exercise in working through things in my own head ... I don't really delude myself that I'm having the impact on society of a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens ... but it's fun and occasionally it results in my clarifying something in my own thinking.
A few days ago, I decided to post a few critical thoughts on someone's Facebook page about a quote attributed to Mother Theresa. This resulted in no actual meaningful dialogue with the poster ... unless one would consider angry scolding "dialogue". But a friend of the poster (hereafter FOP) did respond in at least a civil and pleasant manner, and as a result I endeavored to lay out a brief summary of why I have serious doubts about the existence of any kind of magic sky-god, a soul, or an afterlife (while this post isn't exactly the same thing I wrote, it conveys the same general idea). Yesterday I received a response from FOP, and it inspired me to post a far more detailed response here than would be practical on Facebook. But I will be posting the link to this blog entry, just in case FOP would like to continue the discussion. Also, instead of having to type (sic) repeatedly, I'll just mention that all comments from FOP are in italics and reproduced exactly as FOP typed them. This discussion begins by FOP elaborating on how "too much college" makes people ... well ... less likely to know things:
"... it is the kind of education one recieves that is important. i prefer the real world kind and i also prefer the commonsense kind. when i say "too much college" i'm taking about people who have too much formal education and not nearly enough street smarts. i'd pick street smarts anytime between the two."
Now this is a common lament. It's so common in fact, that I've heard it from Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, religionists, new agers, homeopaths, anti-vaccine activists, non-dairy raw foodists, etc. etc. etc. Essentially, "common sense" is a magical phrase that appears to actually mean "whatever I want to be true". As far as I can tell, it's a combination of two common logical fallacies: the appeal to authority, and the appeal to popularity. The underlying premise is often that the world (and universe) are inherently simple, or at least can be made inherently simple, by forcing everything into a black & white, good & evil paradigm.
"Street smarts" is another phrase that seems to mean whatever the speaker wants it to. For instance, when I think of "street smarts", I think of thugs, con men, common thieves, drug dealers and their addicts, etc. In other words, to me it means people who live on the streets in a bleak and stark fight for daily survival. But I suppose "street smarts" could also mean a slick businessman, a savvy door-to-door salesman, or an ethically challenged used car salesman.
However, I think it's pretty obvious that FOP is using these two terms simply to draw the contrast between the common folk and those who have had too much "formal education". This has always amused me, because it's essentially asserting that people with less formal education are somehow smarter because they're ... well ... uneducated. Yet one only needs to understand a Bell Curve to realize that the majority of people are at best of middling intelligence, and a fair portion of them are below average. So if "common sense" and "street smarts" are valuable because they are rooted in the opinions, perceptions and experiences of the majority, it would probably be best to avoid them.
For instance, I'd wager that FOP wouldn't want a surgeon who relied on street smarts and common sense, or -- for that matter -- a mechanic, a pharmacist, a bridge engineer or a computer programmer. I'd bet FOP would like a highly educated, formally trained expert -- especially if FOP's life, job, or economic future depended upon it. It's just for the big questions ... like the magic sky god, that common sense are reliable I suppose.
Moving right along ....
"...most of what you learn in college, as in any formal schooling, is what you are being force fed by a person that wil add his slant to it.
While this is a favorite claim of conservative talk radio hosts, it's only partially true. Yes, there are cases where leftist professors attempt to turn their classes into socialist indoctrination centers ... especially in the Humanities (and, for the record, I am employed as an instructor by a major American university ... and I'm a libertarian ... and I've seen it and experienced it). But it's a gross overgeneralization and oversimplification. I suppose in this case FOP is using it because I had argued that science provides evidence-based answers to the big questions while religion is just a bunch of made-up stories. Hence, the only way to defeat science (without bothering to actually learn it and understand it) is to reduce it to the same level as religion: simply a matter of opinion. This is a common tactic used by creationists as well.
"... as you said, you don't believe any of the scientific stuff because you don't have true evidence.
My actual comment regarding science and belief was: "Now -- I don't BELIEVE any of this. Belief is the acceptance of something without evidence. I provisionally accept it for the time being because the preponderance of evidence supports it." In other words, I was attempting to refute the religionist claim that everything is simply a matter of belief, and underscore that science requires evidence. Apparently FOP is not only challenged when it comes to spelling and punctuation, but also doesn't read very carefully .......
"... i think that believing in the science of how the world began, is much more of a myth and fairy tale than anything the God theory prvides. i'm sorry that you don't have any proof for your theory. it must be hard living in a world that is so accidental.
Now this is classic creationism. FOP ignores my overt rejection of belief as the basis of scientific inquiry, pushes the requirement for evidence aside, and then totally misrepresents evolutionary theory by invoking "accident" as the driver of the evolutionary engine. This is truly a classic strawman fallacy: First set up a wholly oversimplified, false, and absurd view of evolution, then proceed to attack it while ignoring all of the actual arguments and evidence.
Now it just becomes fun:
"... i, on the other hand, do have much proof that their is a higher power. because of my commonsense, i can look at a 70 foot tree, that grew from a very tiny seed and can conclude that this was no accident. even if it had been an accident, would it happen over and over again? i think not!"
Indeed it isn't an accident. The seed of the tree contains the necessary DNA and genetic code to grow into a tree. It happens all the time ... over and over again. While this is splendid proof of how DNA and reproduction function, it offers no evidence of a magic man in the sky.
"... then i can look at my grandbaby and conclude that this is one of the greatest of miracles of all. but, then again, because of my pesky commonsense, i have to ask myself, could this of happen by chance? then comes the answer, "how could this be chance, when there are millions of grandmas beore me that have had one of these pefect humans in their lives and wondered the same thing?""
A common definition of "miracle" is as follows: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." Millions of babies are born every day. Many of them are not perfect ... some are retarded, some have birth defects, some have congenital disorders. It's just how life works. There's nothing special or miraculous about it. If birth is a miracle, so is urination. Moreover, no evolutionary biologist would ever claim that all this happend by chance. But, again, to know this one would have to actually take the time to read what evolutionary biologists really assert and put forth the effort to understand it. Religionists are not only poor logicians, they're also often intellectually very lazy.
"... how about all the plants that have just the right vitamins and nutrients that we humans need to survive, could that be by chance also?
Ummm ... no ... but I think it should now be clear that it's not all about "chance". Plus, lots of plants are poisonous to us. Certain species die as environmental conditions change. Some plants are quite pleasant, but eating too many of them is unhealthy. And, of course, there are the ever evolving and improving sciences of botany and animal husbandry which improve the quality of food produced and increase the quantity. There'd be a whole hell of a lot fewer of us if we had to depend upon the mythical sky god to provide enough wild food.
"... i could go on for days about all the miracles that sit before you but you would not change your mind because you have been "educated" to believe in science when admittedy, you have no proof!"
As I've said repeatedly, I don't "believe" in science, nor have I been educated to "believe" in science. One of the key differences between science and religion is the way they process evidence. Science gathers evidence, forms hypotheses, tests hypotheses, and ultimately draws conclusions that are technically provisional (i.e. new evidence could augment, update or disprove them) but for all practical purposes are "true". Religion begins with conclusions, and then does anything necessary to justify and rationalize those conclusions. New evidence is simply not allowed, because the underlying conclusions cannot be challenged. I honestly doubt that even if FOP did bother to learn biology, or evolutionary theory, or enough astronomy and physics to understand how the universe really works it would make any difference: the underlying conclusions are sacrosanct, evidence is irrelevant, and "common sense" trumps reason and logic.
But I don't want to convey the impression that I'm posting this just to argue with FOP, because I'm not. I'm posting it because I hear this kind of argument on a weekly basis from all sorts of FOPs out there. This deification of "common sense" and folk wisdom and corresponding rejection of science and education is found in so many different places: creationism, the anti-vaccination movement, so-called "alternative" medicine, conspiracy theories ... the list goes on and on. And underlying it all is ignorance and profound resentment of education, science and the scientific method.
This is probably why we get the government that we do: the sheeple want good education, but not too much, and certainly not enough to challenge their silly beliefs, irrational superstitions, and precious status quo.
A few days ago, I decided to post a few critical thoughts on someone's Facebook page about a quote attributed to Mother Theresa. This resulted in no actual meaningful dialogue with the poster ... unless one would consider angry scolding "dialogue". But a friend of the poster (hereafter FOP) did respond in at least a civil and pleasant manner, and as a result I endeavored to lay out a brief summary of why I have serious doubts about the existence of any kind of magic sky-god, a soul, or an afterlife (while this post isn't exactly the same thing I wrote, it conveys the same general idea). Yesterday I received a response from FOP, and it inspired me to post a far more detailed response here than would be practical on Facebook. But I will be posting the link to this blog entry, just in case FOP would like to continue the discussion. Also, instead of having to type (sic) repeatedly, I'll just mention that all comments from FOP are in italics and reproduced exactly as FOP typed them. This discussion begins by FOP elaborating on how "too much college" makes people ... well ... less likely to know things:
"... it is the kind of education one recieves that is important. i prefer the real world kind and i also prefer the commonsense kind. when i say "too much college" i'm taking about people who have too much formal education and not nearly enough street smarts. i'd pick street smarts anytime between the two."
Now this is a common lament. It's so common in fact, that I've heard it from Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, religionists, new agers, homeopaths, anti-vaccine activists, non-dairy raw foodists, etc. etc. etc. Essentially, "common sense" is a magical phrase that appears to actually mean "whatever I want to be true". As far as I can tell, it's a combination of two common logical fallacies: the appeal to authority, and the appeal to popularity. The underlying premise is often that the world (and universe) are inherently simple, or at least can be made inherently simple, by forcing everything into a black & white, good & evil paradigm.
"Street smarts" is another phrase that seems to mean whatever the speaker wants it to. For instance, when I think of "street smarts", I think of thugs, con men, common thieves, drug dealers and their addicts, etc. In other words, to me it means people who live on the streets in a bleak and stark fight for daily survival. But I suppose "street smarts" could also mean a slick businessman, a savvy door-to-door salesman, or an ethically challenged used car salesman.
However, I think it's pretty obvious that FOP is using these two terms simply to draw the contrast between the common folk and those who have had too much "formal education". This has always amused me, because it's essentially asserting that people with less formal education are somehow smarter because they're ... well ... uneducated. Yet one only needs to understand a Bell Curve to realize that the majority of people are at best of middling intelligence, and a fair portion of them are below average. So if "common sense" and "street smarts" are valuable because they are rooted in the opinions, perceptions and experiences of the majority, it would probably be best to avoid them.
For instance, I'd wager that FOP wouldn't want a surgeon who relied on street smarts and common sense, or -- for that matter -- a mechanic, a pharmacist, a bridge engineer or a computer programmer. I'd bet FOP would like a highly educated, formally trained expert -- especially if FOP's life, job, or economic future depended upon it. It's just for the big questions ... like the magic sky god, that common sense are reliable I suppose.
Moving right along ....
"...most of what you learn in college, as in any formal schooling, is what you are being force fed by a person that wil add his slant to it.
While this is a favorite claim of conservative talk radio hosts, it's only partially true. Yes, there are cases where leftist professors attempt to turn their classes into socialist indoctrination centers ... especially in the Humanities (and, for the record, I am employed as an instructor by a major American university ... and I'm a libertarian ... and I've seen it and experienced it). But it's a gross overgeneralization and oversimplification. I suppose in this case FOP is using it because I had argued that science provides evidence-based answers to the big questions while religion is just a bunch of made-up stories. Hence, the only way to defeat science (without bothering to actually learn it and understand it) is to reduce it to the same level as religion: simply a matter of opinion. This is a common tactic used by creationists as well.
"... as you said, you don't believe any of the scientific stuff because you don't have true evidence.
My actual comment regarding science and belief was: "Now -- I don't BELIEVE any of this. Belief is the acceptance of something without evidence. I provisionally accept it for the time being because the preponderance of evidence supports it." In other words, I was attempting to refute the religionist claim that everything is simply a matter of belief, and underscore that science requires evidence. Apparently FOP is not only challenged when it comes to spelling and punctuation, but also doesn't read very carefully .......
"... i think that believing in the science of how the world began, is much more of a myth and fairy tale than anything the God theory prvides. i'm sorry that you don't have any proof for your theory. it must be hard living in a world that is so accidental.
Now this is classic creationism. FOP ignores my overt rejection of belief as the basis of scientific inquiry, pushes the requirement for evidence aside, and then totally misrepresents evolutionary theory by invoking "accident" as the driver of the evolutionary engine. This is truly a classic strawman fallacy: First set up a wholly oversimplified, false, and absurd view of evolution, then proceed to attack it while ignoring all of the actual arguments and evidence.
Now it just becomes fun:
"... i, on the other hand, do have much proof that their is a higher power. because of my commonsense, i can look at a 70 foot tree, that grew from a very tiny seed and can conclude that this was no accident. even if it had been an accident, would it happen over and over again? i think not!"
Indeed it isn't an accident. The seed of the tree contains the necessary DNA and genetic code to grow into a tree. It happens all the time ... over and over again. While this is splendid proof of how DNA and reproduction function, it offers no evidence of a magic man in the sky.
"... then i can look at my grandbaby and conclude that this is one of the greatest of miracles of all. but, then again, because of my pesky commonsense, i have to ask myself, could this of happen by chance? then comes the answer, "how could this be chance, when there are millions of grandmas beore me that have had one of these pefect humans in their lives and wondered the same thing?""
A common definition of "miracle" is as follows: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." Millions of babies are born every day. Many of them are not perfect ... some are retarded, some have birth defects, some have congenital disorders. It's just how life works. There's nothing special or miraculous about it. If birth is a miracle, so is urination. Moreover, no evolutionary biologist would ever claim that all this happend by chance. But, again, to know this one would have to actually take the time to read what evolutionary biologists really assert and put forth the effort to understand it. Religionists are not only poor logicians, they're also often intellectually very lazy.
"... how about all the plants that have just the right vitamins and nutrients that we humans need to survive, could that be by chance also?
Ummm ... no ... but I think it should now be clear that it's not all about "chance". Plus, lots of plants are poisonous to us. Certain species die as environmental conditions change. Some plants are quite pleasant, but eating too many of them is unhealthy. And, of course, there are the ever evolving and improving sciences of botany and animal husbandry which improve the quality of food produced and increase the quantity. There'd be a whole hell of a lot fewer of us if we had to depend upon the mythical sky god to provide enough wild food.
"... i could go on for days about all the miracles that sit before you but you would not change your mind because you have been "educated" to believe in science when admittedy, you have no proof!"
As I've said repeatedly, I don't "believe" in science, nor have I been educated to "believe" in science. One of the key differences between science and religion is the way they process evidence. Science gathers evidence, forms hypotheses, tests hypotheses, and ultimately draws conclusions that are technically provisional (i.e. new evidence could augment, update or disprove them) but for all practical purposes are "true". Religion begins with conclusions, and then does anything necessary to justify and rationalize those conclusions. New evidence is simply not allowed, because the underlying conclusions cannot be challenged. I honestly doubt that even if FOP did bother to learn biology, or evolutionary theory, or enough astronomy and physics to understand how the universe really works it would make any difference: the underlying conclusions are sacrosanct, evidence is irrelevant, and "common sense" trumps reason and logic.
But I don't want to convey the impression that I'm posting this just to argue with FOP, because I'm not. I'm posting it because I hear this kind of argument on a weekly basis from all sorts of FOPs out there. This deification of "common sense" and folk wisdom and corresponding rejection of science and education is found in so many different places: creationism, the anti-vaccination movement, so-called "alternative" medicine, conspiracy theories ... the list goes on and on. And underlying it all is ignorance and profound resentment of education, science and the scientific method.
This is probably why we get the government that we do: the sheeple want good education, but not too much, and certainly not enough to challenge their silly beliefs, irrational superstitions, and precious status quo.
posted by DrJDG @ 01:49
1 Comments:
At 13/6/11 12:22,
Anonymous said…
i'm sorry that your world is so sad and empty, and that you have nothing happy to believe in. you sound so very angry that someone disagrees with you and i'm sure you're not used to that. usually, you get to sit in your class and spread your negative thoughts around to your students, who's parents are paying dearly for the thought destroying ways many of your kind teach. i have two friends that are professors at a very well known college and since they are conservatives, they are blackballed by the majority of the school facalty. so i do know that this is a major problem in our schools and not just in college. i also have seen many kids that were raised conservative and after college they are flaming liberals. but that kinda works itself out after they start working and the government steals their money to give to those that do not want to work.
you have such an elitist attitude. you make such a big deal about the "common folk" like you are so much above all that. you assumed that i'm just an everyday "common" person, with very little education. i find this quite amusing because you are the one that puts down the newer ideas of "alternative medicine." i can't believe someone with so much self confessed knowledge would put down something that many "scientific" studies have proved worthwhile.
you questioned in your post if i would rather have someone "educated formally" or someone with "street smarts" to work on my car. i would much prefer a person with experience,a guy that has actually done the work. it does not matter to me what he has a degree in. as far as a doctor goes, a degree is mandatory but i know several doctors that graduated at the top that i wouldn't trust. then again i know some that were not at the top of their class, one i know took many years to get his degree, he just couldn't get into the book part of it, he wanted to do the real thing. he is now known as the best doctor anyone could hope for, the one to call for surgery and the one to call for a real opinion. but you wouldn't like him because he believes in "alternative medicine" and he also believes in God. he actually prays with his patients before surgery.
i would think a guy like you, who thinks he's soooo smart would like the new ideas or at least read up on the subject, before you make fun of it.
i'd like to tell you that i'm sorry you find my spelling and punctuation so disturbing, but i'm not sorry. when i write on the computer, i find the thoughts come much faster than the typing skills i have. therefore, i type, quite fast actually, with one finger. i would rather keep the thoughts coming and with one finger i can do that. i don't pay nearly as much attention to spelling as i should (but i don't goof up too much)and i don't do caps, simply because i'm not that good of a typist. sorry if that bothers you but this is not being graded as a school paper as far as i know. so take off your teacher glasses and read this as an exchange of thoughts only.sometimes you "educated" guys seem to think if you bring up punctuation, that will give you points. well, it doesn't. stick to the subject. it only makes you look petty to point out what i obviously know i'm doing.
you say you're a liertarian, but you sound a bit like a liberal. don't worry, i understand (in my common folk way.) i would not admit to being a liberal either. you know, with the whole obama getting elected goof up and all. but don't worry, after the true conservatives get elected in 2012, we'll get things back where they should be. i think we will also get the roe vs wade decision overturned. believe me, you'll have alot more to be angry about when that happens.you won't have to be concerned with this whole God thing, or then again, maybe you will!
i had to choose anonymous to make a comment because i don't have a google account but as you know by now, this is erin.
Post a Comment
<< Home