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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS