If you hear a politician or a salesperson or, for that matter, an opinion columnist invoke common sense, beware. When people say a particular view on immigration, foreign policy, abortion or climate change is just “common sense,” they are implying that those who disagree have no common sense — and therefore must be idiots.
It is a widespread rhetorical tactic. Former US president Donald Trump often appeals to common sense — whether on immigration or Jan. 6 US Capitol riot. US President Joe Biden has asked for “commonsense gun control.” The Union of Concerned Scientists used the phrase in an argument about climate change. I even used it in a column about COVID-19 mask policies.
When scientists probed the idea of common sense using thousands of volunteers, the only beliefs people shared were concrete observations of the world — that gravity makes things fall, that triangles have three sides — not the kinds of things that require debate and persuasion. The results were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers from the University of Pennsylvania tested more than 4,000 statements that were termed “common sense” in media references or political campaigns. They also tested widespread aphorisms, including some by Benjamin Franklin. They also asked their volunteers to offer their own commonsense statements. A few examples include: “Perception is the only source of knowledge,” “Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength,” “Numbers do not lie,” “All human beings are created equal” and “Avoid close contact with people who are ill.”
The researchers wanted to know which statements not only received wide agreement but were perceived as uncontroversial — people assumed they would be agreed upon by most others. The result: There was very little sense that was truly common.
This should help us all think more critically when the phrase gets bandied about in political rhetoric — or anywhere.
“It’s not just in politics, but also in everyday life,” said computational social scientist Duncan Watts, who coauthored the study.
Earlier this month he was serving his jury duty, he said. “And it was really interesting how frequently, in her instructions, the judge told us to rely on our common sense.”
What people think is common sense is idiosyncratic. When politicians or salespeople refer to it, they might be trying to flatter their followers and insult their opponents.
Looking back to the column in which I used that phrase, I wrote that common sense would dictate that if the risk of disease transmission in some settings is negligible, masks should be optional. A better argument would have relied on logic and evidence: Outdoor masking has negligible benefit in preventing viral transmission and outdoor masks make it harder for people to get the mental and physical health benefits of going outside, ergo, outdoor masking should be optional.
Watts was inspired by a 2014 book, Common Sense: A Political History by Sophia Rosenfeld. He said that in the book, Rosenfeld tracks how common sense became associated with goodness — something people wished to possess or feared they lacked.
What is perceived as common sense varies by time, place and culture. In the 1700s, a Scottish professor named James Beattie listed a number of things he considered common sense: Things equal to one and the same thing are equal to one another; ingratitude ought to be blamed and punished; I have a soul distinct from my body; virtue and vice are different; truth exists; and there is a God.
Watts said that he thinks common sense is part of a larger issue he calls uninterrogated knowledge — things people think they know, but have not examined with a critical eye. People think they know what they mean by truth, misinformation and fairness, but these concepts are fuzzy and subjective.
It would be nice if common sense existed. Then, all we would have to do was turn it on and we would suddenly come to agreement on divisive political matters, difficult legal deliberations and bitter personal disagreements.
As for my falling back on common sense in a column, I could see how that tactic forecloses a useful discussion. There is a productive, illuminating debate to be had between disagreeing sides — and it will not be solved by appeals to common sense.
F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the Follow the Science podcast. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS