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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS