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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS