-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Common Sense
- Thread starter uk_dave
- Start date
You are misrepresenting both Reid and Moore and their ideas as well as specific philosophical versions of "common sense" and "skepticism". In the extreme, skepticism can doubt everything including what we have some to know via empirical verification. For example, just because objects have always fallen to the earth, it doesn't mean they will continue to do so. Another example: how do we know that the world hasn't just come into existence a second ago? How do you know that you're not a robot programmed with your memories that has just been switched on?
The idea of common sense in this context is that there are certain things that we cannot avoid believing about the world and it is better to assume that these are true. In other words there is a sense of the world that we all hold in common. These esssentials are specific and limited and do not presume that we instinctively understand everything (or even very much) about the world. They gives us a foundation from which to build empirical knowledge and the scientific method. What it fundamental does not do is reject experiment and testing in favour of quick instinctive judgements or undermine the principles of learning and expertise in understanding the world.
There's some information about Moore's essay "A Defence of Common Sense" in these links:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moore/#6
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/streiffer/PresentationsFolder/Moore_Def_of_Common_HO.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defence_of_Common_Sense
http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/bibliog/moore25.htm
Last edited:
Monty Hall is indeed a good one! There are a lot of those statistical things that might confuse people, if for example a family has two kids and one of them is a girl what is the chance the other is a girl.
The problem with the speed of light is that it is counterintuitive, the same for the features in quantum world.
The problem with the speed of light is that it is counterintuitive, the same for the features in quantum world.
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Isn't psychology fascinating? I made a very keen observation some time back... about how I didn't think all of you were acting like real skeptics because you weren't skeptical of the official story when it has a million holes in it.
I love when I have an original idea or notion that is beautifully echoed with other research and analysis. Pseudoskeptics - yes, what a perfect nomenclature for this bunch of habitual debunkers.
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
I'm not the one doing the habitual debunking, ole chap. Nor am I a self-professed skeptic.
"Common Sense."
Snork.
Take a good look at a Stirling motor. "Common sense" goes "WTF?!?!?!"
I'm putting one together from a kit right now (Astromedia,) and there's nothing freakier than that first time you heat the displacer cylinder and move it by hand, and the power piston moves in response. Freaky, because exactly NOTHING happens if the displacer cylinder is not heated.
Counter intuitive as all hell.
Common sense works for common situations - and even then, be suspicious of what it tells you. Outside of that, forget it.
Snork.
Take a good look at a Stirling motor. "Common sense" goes "WTF?!?!?!"
I'm putting one together from a kit right now (Astromedia,) and there's nothing freakier than that first time you heat the displacer cylinder and move it by hand, and the power piston moves in response. Freaky, because exactly NOTHING happens if the displacer cylinder is not heated.
Counter intuitive as all hell.
Common sense works for common situations - and even then, be suspicious of what it tells you. Outside of that, forget it.
this is correct, what you are doing are falling into the 'blind faith' and 'la-la-la-lalalalalala-I'm-not-listening-to you-lalalala' categories
So. What are you?
Besides cute as a button.
*Curnir tickles 28ths tummy*
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
I prefer to have me ears tickled. Thanks in advance.
PerryLogan
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 980
The definition of "Pseudoskeptics" looks like a point-by-point breakdown of the Truther mind. Thank you 28th Kingdom!
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Hello Mr. Wonderful,
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Last edited:
*curnir sighs*
Oh the irony.
Axiom_Blade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,979
Exactly. So, you "projected" your pseudoskeptical habits onto us, when they were really yours all along.
Freud's been debunked a lot, though. I don't think he's very credible any more.
28th Kingdom, while I appreciate (and I'm clearly not the only one) you giving us a clear description of the standard CTist, don't you think it is time you start answering questions and providing evidence for you claims in the threads you fled from?
Don't you think you should also apologize for making fun of the last known words of Mark Bingham?
Don't you think you should also apologize for making fun of the last known words of Mark Bingham?
PerryLogan
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 980
A Truther apologizing! I'm holding my breath here...
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
28th kingdom you say
This is a fact that is learned through experience. what experience you you have with how buildings collapse.
Plus my common sense tells me there was nothing unusual about the collapse. My common sense tells me the so called squibs are caused by the air pressure. My common sense tells me there is nothing unusual about hearing explosions during a large fire. ( I hear loud pops in my fireplace does this mean the termites have rigged the logs with explosives). My common sense tells me it would have been next to impossible to set up the explosives in the buildings without being discovered. My common sense tells me it is very unlikely the so called planners of the attack would have risked discovery by planting explosives. My common sense tells me an explosion in the basement an hour before the collapse and at the time of impact would not be indicative of a controlled demolition. My common sense tells me that when an airplane hits the ground at over 500 mph most of it will be broken into tiny pieces but not vaporized. My common sense tells if the collapse violated the laws of physics many engineers and physicists would notice this fact. This hasn't happened so my common sense tells me the laws of physic were not suspended.
There must be literally hundreds of common sense reasons to doubt the CT view of the events on 9/11. Of course this is only my common sense but it has been reinforced with the opinions with experts in the fields.
This is a fact that is learned through experience. what experience you you have with how buildings collapse.
Plus my common sense tells me there was nothing unusual about the collapse. My common sense tells me the so called squibs are caused by the air pressure. My common sense tells me there is nothing unusual about hearing explosions during a large fire. ( I hear loud pops in my fireplace does this mean the termites have rigged the logs with explosives). My common sense tells me it would have been next to impossible to set up the explosives in the buildings without being discovered. My common sense tells me it is very unlikely the so called planners of the attack would have risked discovery by planting explosives. My common sense tells me an explosion in the basement an hour before the collapse and at the time of impact would not be indicative of a controlled demolition. My common sense tells me that when an airplane hits the ground at over 500 mph most of it will be broken into tiny pieces but not vaporized. My common sense tells if the collapse violated the laws of physics many engineers and physicists would notice this fact. This hasn't happened so my common sense tells me the laws of physic were not suspended.
There must be literally hundreds of common sense reasons to doubt the CT view of the events on 9/11. Of course this is only my common sense but it has been reinforced with the opinions with experts in the fields.
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.
See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning
It's also a matter of imagination.
The likes of 28K like to accuse skeptics of having no imagination, when in fact it is the CTers who lack the imagination to appreciate events which exceed their common sense.
One particular poster on the LC forum, let's call him Tillwonk, cannot understand the actual debris fields left from the pentagon and shanksville crashes because he lacks the imagination to understand how these huge aircraft can so completely disintegrate in a high speed impact.
For Tillwonk, if a plane crashes his common sense tells him that there should be easily identifiable wing and tail sections because his common sense will not allow him to imagine the forces involved in tearing apart those planes.
Likewise, certain CTers can only relate the collapse of the WTC towers to videos of demolitions they have seen because they lack the imagination to understand the power of gravity and the forces acting upon the buildings.
Common sense tells them that the buildings had to have been brought down by explosives because that is how you bring down buildings, and to accept the official account of events is to imagine just how relatively fragile these tall structures are and that is something their closed view of the world will not allow them to do.
The likes of 28K like to accuse skeptics of having no imagination, when in fact it is the CTers who lack the imagination to appreciate events which exceed their common sense.
One particular poster on the LC forum, let's call him Tillwonk, cannot understand the actual debris fields left from the pentagon and shanksville crashes because he lacks the imagination to understand how these huge aircraft can so completely disintegrate in a high speed impact.
For Tillwonk, if a plane crashes his common sense tells him that there should be easily identifiable wing and tail sections because his common sense will not allow him to imagine the forces involved in tearing apart those planes.
Likewise, certain CTers can only relate the collapse of the WTC towers to videos of demolitions they have seen because they lack the imagination to understand the power of gravity and the forces acting upon the buildings.
Common sense tells them that the buildings had to have been brought down by explosives because that is how you bring down buildings, and to accept the official account of events is to imagine just how relatively fragile these tall structures are and that is something their closed view of the world will not allow them to do.
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
common sense tells me there are no empty areas in that steel door but it is made up of mostly empty space.