• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Common Sense

uk_dave

Philosopher
U
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
8,154
We've heard it again and again from the 'truthers':

"Common sense tells us......"

You know the drill: Present them with facts which are contrary to their view of the world and they start on about common sense being just as good as expertise.

So I started to wonder, what other examples of the real world can we present which are counter intuitive to common sense?

My favourites would be:

1. Speed of light

How can something have a constant speed regardless of how fast I am moving in relation to it? Surely common sense tells us that if I am travelling 'very fast' while carrying a torch, then the speed of the light coming out of that torch will be c + 'very fast', right? Just common sense.

2. Flying objects

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/lifting_bodies/Tech29G1.htm

How can these 'planes' fly when the wings are so short? Surely common sense tells us that the wings would have to be bigger to provide lift?

3. Strange Creatures

http://www.ocean.udel.edu/kiosk/bsmoker.html

How can creatures live in complete darkness and temperatures of 400 deg centigrade? Common sense tells us this is impossible, right?

Have at it
 
My personal favorite, as one versed in statistics and probability, is the Monty Hall Problem.

Common sense would dictate that the odds are 50/50, since how can the doors know whether or not you changed your mind? Nonetheless, play it by the rules of common sense, and you'll probably go home with a new Pet Goat.
 
Twoofers love to appeal to what they call common sense yet they then turn around and make some retarded statement about "free fall" collapses while debris is clearly seen falling faster than the collapse itself.

These people live in an alternate reality - one where words can mean the exact opposite to what most people think they mean.
 
universities are cheating everyone, you dont need a degree in engineering, or chemistry, or medicine or physics, you just need a degree in common sense then you can do anythign you want

R.Mackey said:
Pet Goat.
Click to expand...
i find it very amusing the wiki entry for that has a plot section with a spoiler warning, lol
 
Balloons and people in dodgy shorts......

http://www.abc.net.au/science/experimentals/experiments/episode15_2.htm

What you need:
. 2 balloons
. a piece of rubber hose about 15cm long and wide enough for the balloon mouth to fit around snugly (you can get this from a hardware shop - don't go cutting up the good garden hose!)
. someone to help you hold the balloons

What to do:
. blow one of the balloons up to normal size, and get your friend to hold the neck of it tightly while you blow the other one up to half that size
. don't tie the balloons off!
. put the mouth of the balloons onto the ends of the rubber tubing without letting too much air escape, and without letting go of the neck of the balloon
. once both balloons are attached to the tubing, let go of their necks at the same time and watch what happens!

What's going on:
Crikey - that is counterintuitive!

You'd expect the big balloon to force air into the little balloon, because the big one's got much more air in it. But the exact opposite happens!

Air always moves from high pressure to low pressure. When the balloon's fully blown up its skin is a lot thinner, so it exerts less pressure on the air inside. But a balloon that's only half blown up has a much thicker skin. So the air inside the part-inflated balloon is under higher pressure.

When you connect the air in both balloons, the air from high pressure moves into the low pressure balloon until the pressure is the same in both - when both balloons are the same size!
Click to expand...

Crikey!
 
Good one, UK_Dave.

Docking In Earth Orbit:
If 2 vehicles are in the same orbit, and the guy 5 miles behind needs to dock with the guy up ahead, common sense says that the trailing guy hits the accelerator so he can catch up. But it's the opposite. He actually has to slow down to catch up. Slowing down drops him into a lower orbit, causing him to move faster around the earth.
 
I have had a lot of CTs tell me to use common "sence" to figure things out. But since I have never heard of the word "sence" I was not sure what exactly they wanted me to do.:p
 
Common sense is simply a guised appeal to authority. In this case the authority is so guised that we cannot ask it by direct appeal. It is the perfect bulletproof argument......or maybe not.


At one time everyone knew that frog came from mud. It was common sense.

Everyone knew that dieases were caused by spirits and/or a jealous or angry god. It was common sense.

Everyone knew that women were meant to be men's property. Says it right here in Genesis. Besides, it's common sense.

Common sense is what you say when you want to sound authoritive, but have not a damned blasted thing to hang your ideas upon.
 
Oh Lord... you can tell when someone doesn't have any common sense by the way they try to apply it (common sense) to other scenarios. Firstly, common sense doesn't (necessarily) tell us how the WTC Towers fell. What common sense does tell us - is that NIST's Theory (of how the collapses occurred) is physically impossible.

Here is an essential action in the processing of common sense:

Main Entry: con·ceive
Pronunciation: k&n-'sEv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·ceived; con·ceiv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French conceivre, from Latin concipere to take in, conceive, from com- + capere to take -- more at [SIZE=-1]HEAVE[/SIZE]
transitive verb

2 a : to take into one's mind <conceive a prejudice> b : to form a conception of : [SIZE=-1]IMAGINE[/SIZE] <a badly conceived design>
3 : to apprehend by reason or imagination : [SIZE=-1]UNDERSTAND[/SIZE] <unable to conceive his reasons>

The reason none of you left-brain radicals have any common sense, is because you lack imagination, which is at the heart of functioning common sense. (sadly, for you guys/gals - this creative component of imaginary lives in the right-side of the brain)

I have said before... that it's very interesting how NIST failed to show us a computer simulation of the entire collapses. It's very suspicious that they only focus on the initiation point of the collapse... i.e. sagging trusses, and the bowing outer columns, and not the actual collapses.

Why didn't NIST (in their 3+ years of reporting) take the time to show us something as critical and important as how the falling upper mass caused the core columns to break and fall within the symmetrical progression of the collapse? And, by show us... I am, of course, referring to imaginary - and not a mesh of complex and contradictory terms (linguistic symbols) that only serve to dilute our thoughts (minds) down into a dark abyss of disillusionment... well beyond the light and sounds of a sensory experience i.e. REALITY

Why? Because common sense tells us that what they are saying is impossible. How do we know this without a PHD in physics? Well, how do I know that I can't pass my hand through a steel door? I really don't know the physics behind this event... but that doesn't mean I can't proclaim with 100% certainty that it's impossible according to the laws of physics. I don't need a degree in order to ascertain this simple factoid... just common sense.

The reason this animation (of the entire collapse) is so important is because it would help us all conceive of exactly what their theory is and how they are saying the entire structure crumbled floor by floor - top to bottom... all the way to the ground. And how all the floors blew outward several hundred feet - and what happened to the core columns, and how this progressive top to bottom - floor by floor collapse differs from a pancake collapse.

The reason they didn't do this is because - their final theory still describes a pancake collapse... BECAUSE that's the only type of collapse it could have been.

(minus explosives...with explosives - the "collapse" still appears (visually) to progress top to bottom...but there is no pancaking - the floors are actually being blown up one by one in a downward sequence, which creates the illusion of a collapse...when in reality nothing is collapsing...it's just exploding)

Why? Because we saw the way the buildings collapsed floor by floor - top to bottom... did WTC 7 fall like this? Nope. There are a lot of ways a building can collapse, but if it happens like the WTC Towers i.e. floor by floor - top to bottom (which, my god... has never happened and would never happen on buildings like these) than it would be classified as a pancake collapse.

NIST manages to pull off the beguiling task of explaining this contradiction (impossible pancake collapse - as seen in video footage - made possible) by slipping into some classic Doublethink, in order to disguise the fact, that they admit a progression top to bottom pancake collapse isn't possible because of the unique way the WTC Towers are built, yet we all saw (with our own eyes) the way the buildings fell progressively - top to bottom, floor by floor... so now what we have (minus any explosive variables) is a paradoxical conundrum which can only be articulated with Doublethink. Which, oh by the way... is very easy to detect - when armed with a little device known as common sense.

No Common Sense = Intellectual Blind Spot
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
The reason none of you left-brain radicals have any common sense, is because you lack imagination, which is at the heart of functioning common sense.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

Common sense is contrary to imagination, because common sense tells you that an object emitting light and travelling at speed will result in that light travelling at it's constant speed plus the speed of the moving object, relative to an observer.

Imagination is where we can put aside or preconceptions produced by our common sense view of the world and grasp concepts which appear to be contrary to common sense.

And you spent so long writing it too.
 
When someone posts claims and accusations on a forum, and always changes subject or runs away when asked for evidence for these claims, common sense tells me that these claims and accusations are bogus.
 
I have just done some research on the origins and meaning of the term "common sense."

28th, you don't have a clue. Sorry. My right-brained imaginative side is laughing at you, and having cheesecake.
 
"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
"The Dork Side of the Farce"

Yea... real right-brained... you 3747474 moron. So what do you do for a living? Computer programming?
Click to expand...

Well you see, yet again, the use of "The Dork Side of the Farce" shows great imagination and is contrary to common sense which would, of course, have had it read "The Dark Side of the Force", and would not have been funny, but would have been a sensible rendition of a well known catchphrase.

So one suspects that your imagination function is impaired and all you are left with is your own 'common sense' view of the world which is severely warped.

Oh and I came very close to reporting your use of 'moron', but decided not to as I suspect that I may well be using some imaginative epithets about you in the not too distant future.
 
uk_dave said:
Wrong!

Common sense is contrary to imagination, because common sense tells you that an object emitting light and travelling at speed will result in that light travelling at it's constant speed plus the speed of the moving object, relative to an observer.
Click to expand...

Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale. Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonsense

Two philosophers are most famous for advocating the other meaning of "common sense", the view (to state it imprecisely) that common sense beliefs are true and form a foundation for philosophical inquiry: Thomas Reid, G. E. Moore. Both Reid and Moore, individually, are famous for appealing to common sense to refute skepticism.

Isn't that interesting.

Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point, such as Project Alpha.

Because debunkers often challenge popular ideas, many are not strangers to controversy. Critics of debunkers sometimes accuse them of robbing others of hope. Debunkers frequently reply that it is the claimant, whom they many times accuse of exploiting public gullibility, who is guilty of abuse.

Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.

According to Truzzi, pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:
  • The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
  • Double standards in the application of criticism
  • The making of judgements without full inquiry
  • Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
  • Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
  • Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
  • Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
  • Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
  • Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
  • Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
  • Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
  • Tendency to dismiss all evidence
Aww, and you all thought you were unique snowflakes.
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
Oh Lord... you can tell when someone doesn't have any common sense by the way they try to apply it (common sense) to other scenarios. Firstly, common sense doesn't (necessarily) tell us how the WTC Towers fell. What common sense does tell us - is that NIST's Theory (of how the collapses occurred) is physically impossible.
Click to expand...

The world is a complicated place, it takes knowledge, study and work to comprehend it. With this statement you just show your ignorance and the value of your common sense.

To put it simply: people who work with large buildings see nothing strange about the collapse once it had initiated. They see no need to attempt to model it.

I'll go further: of the millions of people who have seen the images of the collapse only a handful of people on massages boards are making a fuss.

If it's so obvious why can only a few people (and no experts of note) see it?

Why can't these people so endowed with "common sense" come up with a coherent story of what did happen. Why can't they back this up with calculations?

I presume that you would have been on the side of The Inquisition against Gallileo, after all what he said went against common sense.

Likewise, surely common sense tells us that the Earth is flat?

I'll say this again, if your common sense is so powerful, take it to the world:


maccy said:
28K you're obviously not making much progress in convincing people here, but I don't understand why you're even trying. If what you're saying is, as you say, both obvious and scientific why aren't you making an effort to get this information out to the world? The world is has many media outlets, technical journals and engineering departments - why not send your information to people involved with these? If you don't manage to get the word out this way, I would say that you are ultimately insignificant.

Remember, this isn't about us convincing you, it's about you convincing the world. At the moment, the world says you are wrong. What are you going to do to change its mind?

There are lots and lots of people you can contact about this, here are a few suggestions of places you might want to start:

science magazines:

http://www.ejse.org/EdBoard.htm
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/st.html
http://www.sciam.com/
http://research.yale.edu/ysm/
http://www.sciencemag.org/
http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
http://www.stanford.edu/~dgermain/index.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/

Demolition Publications

http://www.implosionworld.com/

Fire Engineering Magazine:

http://fe.pennnet.com/

Architecture Magazines:

http://www.arplus.com/home.htm
http://www.architectmagazine.com/
http://architectstore.com/magazine.html

Engineering Departments

http://www.shef.ac.uk/civil/
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/
http://www.engg.le.ac.uk/
http://www.eng.abdn.ac.uk/
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/esbe/about/depeng.shtml
http://www.liv.ac.uk/engdept/
http://www.swan.ac.uk/engineering/
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/civileng/

http://www.enfp.umd.edu/
http://www.ce.ksu.edu/
http://www.matsceng.ohio-state.edu/
http://www.ce.jhu.edu/
http://ase.tufts.edu/cee/
http://www.ce.clemson.edu/
http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/
http://cee.mit.edu/
http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/

Science Correspondents of Media outlets:

http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

There's a whole list of newspapers around the world here:

http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/
Click to expand...
 
28th Kingdom said:
Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale. Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.
Click to expand...
Well, I have no experience with 417 meter buildings collapsing. Except, sadly, with the two WTC-towers. How then can common sense be enough to understand their collapse?

We need computations, formulas, models, computer simulations, you know, the weird things produced by left-brainers that you don't like because you don't understand them. :)

28th Kingdom said:
Why didn't NIST (in their 3+ years of reporting) take the time to show us something as critical and important as how the falling upper mass caused the core columns to break and fall within the symmetrical progression of the collapse? And, by show us... I am, of course, referring to imaginary - and not a mesh of complex and contradictory terminology (linguistic symbols) that only serve to dilute our thoughts (minds) down into a dark abyss of disillusionment... well beyond the light and sounds of a sensory experience i.e. REALITY
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom