Talk:Common sense/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saratorresinda. Peer reviewers: Laylims.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Inaccessible article
I find this article almost completely unreadable. It makes too much use of philosophical jargon with little explanation. Especially the sections on "Locke and the Empiricists" and "Epistemology". I learn nothing from reading these sections.

In fact, the earlier version of June 2, 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_sense&oldid=4012173) that was proposed as a "featured article candidate" is much more readible. It was clear, more simply written, and all of the jargon can be resolved by context.

-Ben

There are certain respects in which I, too, am forced to agree. The beginning of the article sounds more like a particular interpretation of the term and certainly requires more editing, among other things.

TonalHarmony (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree this article is difficult to read and comprehend, starts with a poor dictionary definition, which is misleading since the subject as defined does not exist and there is no explanation of the definition and a weak lead summary.  The article is only about the Philosophy of Common Sense but is titled Common Sense, but has nothing about the Psychology Science of Common Sense. The June 2 20004 version I think is better also.  I will work to add Science to this article. I hope others will start to upgrade this article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, the above was written 6 years ago, about a completely different version of this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

older entries

 * Apparently there is little common sense on common sense. If this is to be more than a constructed definition (e.g., original research), then it should talk about the varieties of common sense and use citation to back that up. This article is in serious need of help. --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Common Sense is not knowledge. It is a common method of acquiring knowledge, represented by a knowledge, recognizable as that knowledge.

When a person infers that 'common sense' would 'dictate' that person is not referring to a specific knowledge but to what the words actually mean.

'Common' is something most                                       widely known, or habitual.

'Sense' is a natural understanding or intelligence.

So 'common sense' would be a widely known, natural understanding.

Not all persons have the same knowledge, yet all persons use the same method of intelligence.

Your 'common sense' may not be the 'common sense' of another person, which is why the term has never gained 'common sense' understanding.

Read chapter 12 of The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing at http://www.enticypress.com to see the definitive 'common sense' explanation.

There's a lot of comment on common sense by many writers that should be here.

Also, the sense of it in Common Sense Revolution, as that phrase was coined in New Jersey and Ontario, should be mentioned. Here is an example of such self-proclaimed common sense by User:JoeM, who has certainly livened things up with his relentless support of Zionist Occupation Government and pursuit of New World Empire (from User_talk:JoeM):


 * "You people are cowards. You know that one common sense conservative can topple down the delicate house of cards made up users who are at least 90% far left. That's why you want me banned. Well, you might be able to ban me when you control the machinery, but my views are those of the majority of Americans and we now have an all-GOP government now. :America voted for Bush. Bush's approval rating are high. We have a GOP House and Senate. Americans supported the war in Iraq. Americans prefer Republican governors. We prefer the free market, tough on crime stances, a strong foreign policy guided by moral clarity, freedom, and national security, smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom. Americans love Reagan and We defeated Communism and socialism. However, a bunch of leftists are censoring me because they control this site and not America. User:JoeM"


 * This is a great quote, but should have been given a date. Now we have an "all-DEM government now", LOL. And "Bush's approval rating are low", LOL. Besides the twisted grammar and factually-incorrect phrasing, this is clearly WP:MPOV. Does that mean that one sense of Common Sense is a state of being in MPOV? --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately. If only the staid Wikipedians were in fact writing briefing papers for Bush. He might learn something.


 * It's common sense that most people don't care, and two parties still exist because neither can and does win. Bush only won because others let him. lysdexia 17:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lack of common sense
Would it be fair to say that geeks lack common sense? At least I do. People tell that to me all the time. :) Can we expand the article to include a section "Lack of common sense and those who don't get it"?
 * you need a serious, referenced source to say so. Andries 16:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Should be of note that it is possible that those with Aspergers Syndrome may lack certain common sense (Like forgetting about personal hygeine or lack of social common sense). Just my two-cents, i will add it into the article unless someone objects me doing so. I am fairly knowledgeble of the mind of an Asperger since i am one myself.--Raddicks 16:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What exactly is "lack of common sense"? (Or even just "what is ``common sense''? ")
 * I ask because I've had people tell me "you have no common sense".
 * Usually whenever I use the phrase "common sense", I use it to imply things like intuitiveness and intuition, but then people tell me "you have no common sense" and their usage of it therefore completely disagrees with my usage of it. I am an aspie, by the way, if that somehow makes a difference in this discussion (it might be interesting if it did). Stuart Morrow 20:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the definition provided in the top paragraph, it is just saying that your point of views simply do not agree with the other person's point of views. Nothing to do with Asperger's Syndrome, simply a rhetoric fallacy. 129.21.35.237 (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

= Common sense ==Alexander was here. Common sense is often confused with logic, but common sense is logic plus extraneous information that is available to most people. Logic is applied according to a set of rules, and is internal to that system only. Thus you have 'garbage in, garbage out', as is evidenced so often in our legal system. Common sense helps filter out garbage, and is why juries are allowed to use common sense, whereas officers of the courts do not.


 * so, what you are saying is that common sense is meta-data of the logic process/experiences accumulated throught applying the logic process, right? is it an Meme? Because if it is, we can talk about how common logic is a learned trait and it must be taught/learned though experience in order to be understood. (Yeah, i don't get how people say "It's just common sence!") Project2501a 14:42, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the dynamics of an individual's common sense
There is a surprising contradiction in the article: Common sense is considered to be a static phenomenon: "There are two general meanings to the term "common sense" in philosophy. One is a sense that is common to the others, and the other meaning is a sense of things that is common to humanity." (from the article)

On the other hand, the strongest reference in the article reads: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." (Einstein)

So, why do we not talk more about the ways an individual develops their own "common sense"? This is more important than one would think, since, if Einstein is right, for most of us, regearding most of the areas of knowledge, education ends at age eighteen. For instance, the mathematical "common sense" is fully formed by then.

Undoubtedly, the only possible goal of the middle level education is to form the "common sense". Why do we not talk about the dynamics of one's individual common sense as opposed to fighting for "real knowledge". Don't be mistaken, "real knowledge" cannot be conwayed during the course of middle level education. At least in mathematics the best that a high school can achieve is the provision of the right mathematical "common sense".

Is there such a thing as the "right common sense" if "common sense" is, according to common sense, just the opposit of deep knowledge? "Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people 'in common'." (from the article)

Common sense as the unconscious combining of information
I would define common sense as:

1. The tendency of a person’s brain to run a background process that automatically (i.e. without conscious direction) combines elementary pieces of information and supplies the results to the conscious mind.

2. Knowledge gained by the above process.

The terminology I’ve used here is a litte sloppy, e.g. I’ve used the words “brain”, “mind”, “conscious”, and “background” in ways that may not be precisely standard, but overall I think this definition is an important one and I don’t see anything similar in the article. I may do something about this at some point but in the meantime am providing this comment as a heads-up (and to invite responses).

Note that part 1 here is entirely consistent with the leading paragraph of this talk page, which describes common sense as “a common method of acquiring knowledge” rather than knowledge itself. Fillard 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your definition a lot more than the one given by the article. I think as it stands, the article’s definition confuses common sense with conventional wisdom.  To me common sense is an individual’s judgment rather than a majority consensus.  It draws on all of the individual’s experience and knowledge (including the esoteric one), without explicit use of logic, rather uses brain’s innate ability to integrate information to come up with prudent / common sense judgment.  It is an acknowledgement of the fact that most complex (real life) problems that are outside of the confines of well-controlled physics experiments lack accurate data and rule set to apply logic with any degree of accuracy.


 * So much for a common sense definition of common sense... ReAlly 06:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * PS My biggest concern with the article is the first paragraph and heavy emphasis on philosophy. I would have liked to see some brain research discussion (if anyone knows of any). ReAlly 07:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Not so common
As has already been said everyones common sense is not the same. Education, upbringing, religion all play a part in the thought process.

Applying common sense to a set of laid down rules is dependant on the indviduals education. In his/her ability to understand the rules as laid down.

If an individual does not fully understand the rules he/she cannot really be expected to apply common sense to those rules.

Added to that if a person has not properly read those rules then he is in no position to comment in a 'common sense' fashion as to how those rules are to be interpreted.

But of course this is just me using my common sense.

"Other arguments have been exhaused"
"Common sense is sometimes appealed to in political debates, particularly when other arguments have been exhausted. Civil rights for African Americans, women's suffrage, and homosexuality—to name just a few—have all been attacked as being contrary to common sense": this should be slightly edited for NPOV, as it implies that there are no other possible arguments against these, that these other arguments were exhausted, &c. It is possible that this is true, but this is a POV against these which shouldn't be in Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If I could add my persepective to the subject; common sense has more to do with accurately perceiving the world around us i.e simple physics, social norms, being able to distinguish especially in oneself rational vs. irrational behaviour, and the ability to predict fairly accurately consequences of actions and behaviours in physical as well as social interactions.

Mark Sutton

This article is priceless
... because it completely lacks common sense, in the real meaning of the word. The current definition embodies that lack of common sense, when it uses analytic techniques to deconstruct the phrase to find meaning. And yet it completely misses what the phrase means, most of the time that it is used. common sense is about judgement, wisdom and practicality. wikipædia marches on!! flux.books 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another view
Although I do believe there's such a thing as common sense, and this discussion prompts me to think about how I'd define that, there was a former headmaster at the Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, who retired. One speaker at the retirement ceremony praised the headmaster for his common sense. In replying, he demurred, and said that common sense tells many people the earth is flat.

Common sense is more relative, I think, than it appears on the surface. If I think you're showing common sense in a given situation, it may mean: — OtherDave 22:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your choices, even if not formally correct, have a logic and an aptness I can perceive.
 * Your choices are the ones I think I myself would make (and therefore they must demonstrate common sense), even though I'm not the person having to make the choices.

Does common sense exist?
If applying common sense worked, the world would have many less conflicts and be a much simpler place. But it does not, for more than one reason.

The first of these is that the concept of common sense is mythical. It is supposed to be the set of basic sense most of us have, but there are some problems with this.

The first is that people are not that uniform, theyre not even close. The reality is that people vary widely in every respect. Why we are taught otherwise is the subject for another article some time.

The 2nd is that a belief being shared among a group of people, even a whole nation, does not make it correct. Appearing to be sense does not make something sense.

The 3rd problem is that most things described as common sense are in practice nothing but group assumptions. It is not a coincidence that most people think they have common sense, even though what people believe varies a good deal.

Too often group 1 believes A, group 2 believes not_A, group 3 believes maybe_A and group 4 believes A_is_insane, and yet all 4 groups call what they believe common sense, failing to notice the error of their perception. Tabby 23:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Current First Paragraph is Awfully Convoluted
As of the time of this post, it reads:

"Common sense (or, when used attributively as an adjective, commonsense, common-sense, or commonsensical), based on a strict construction of the term, is what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding. Some use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment, without dependence upon esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what is believed to be knowledge held by people "in common", so: the knowledge and experience most people have, or are believed to have by the person using the term."

Hmm... what? Sounds like me grasping for words in my old high school philosophy papers.

201.29.17.10 19:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Concerned Citizen

Common Sense & Speed of Light
I am no expert in this field however might I suggest that the statement "Humans lack any commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances; or speeds approaching that of light." in the 3rd paragraph is superflous.

It's not a particularly informative statement, especially considering that an 'ordinary' member of a society would hardly ever be required to apply their common sense to these areas & intuition is not really part of the scientific method.

The prior statement "... without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people" precludes these areas does it not (or is this counter-intuitiveness to be considered the ignorance of a populace)?

Perhaps including the statement " ... human 'common sense' ceases to be applicable in areas of theoretical science for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances; or speeds approaching that of light. " would be more useful?

Comments &/or suggestions please :)

IE (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

An individual cannot HAVE a common sense
Under the title "Aristotle and Ibn Sina" there is a statement:

Individuals could have different common senses (...)

Isn't that statement a contradiction in itself? Because individuals can only have INDIVIDUAL senses (perhaps understood as perceptions), and a COMMON sense could be associated only to an entity of (at least) more than one single individual, e.g. a group. Hence, an individual could only SHARE a common sense (or JOIN, or ... please find some more appropriate english word instead of SHARE); as well as: different individuals could SHARE different common senses. --Azvonko (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the (woefully deficient) article to reflect what Aristotle actually SAID, as opposed to a misguided gloss on a third-hand anachronistic account. I hope this will clear up what he actually meant by "common" and "sense", which are extraordinarily different than what was previously expressed in the section. I have also duly provided sources, although I do not know if the references are entirely well-formatted...(forgive me, I'm new at this, but it had to be done.)

TonalHarmony (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Article should emphasise that common sense is not to be relied upon or trusted
(Why has this text gone tiny?)

Common sense includes stereotypes and prejudices, for example. It is not tested empirically. The common sense of the white population in the southern USA in the early nineteenth century is considered untrue today. In my personal opinion, fools and/or bigots trust their common sense. Compare with critical thinking and self deception. If I could I would also add Truthiness to the See Also section.

It does seem unresonable that the article cannot be edited. 89.240.206.60 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Improper Redirect
The common-sense metaphysics link under philosophy currently redirects to "Infant cognitive development," it should actually be redirected to "Scottish School of Common Sense"; the philosophical idea of common sense has nothing to do with infant cognition, it has everything to do with Thomas Reid (and others in that school). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.103.200 (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one understanding of it may have a lot to do with infant cognition (I am not the one who made the edit, mind you.) At least in the Aristotelian conception, it is the way by which our external senses are integrated, so the degree to which this occurs on a sensible level in the growth of an infant would likely, among other things, have something to contribute to understanding the Molyneux problem posited in Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

However, I am unsure if this is what is meant by common sense "metaphysics"; if that is what you are emphasizing there as referring to a specific non-Aristotelian or non-Scholastic school, then it's no concern of mine. :-)

TonalHarmony (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What allows the effective functioning of common sense?
If you do not mind, I can give you my own understanding. Often the wikipedia experts think that I am a vandal. Just think of this paragraph: Everyone who cannot identify the common properties of different things will lack common sense. The common properties allow the effective functioning of common sense. Going by the definition of common, being able to predict a future reaction based on well-known behavior of something (a property), is common sense. It's not an individual preference...because then it wouldn't be common. Every scientific method is a structured process whose logical structure is based on the knowledge of the common properties observed of different familiar things. As experience contradicts with the bookish knowledge, people have already came with 'analytical wiki' which makes a claim that You will die if you do not use your common sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is the Criticism section?
Something out to be said about common sense often being erronious, as described above. 78.146.171.125 (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The ACTUAL Aristotelian common sense, instead of a caricature, please?
As of the current page status, the section on Aristotle reads:

"According to Aristotle and Ibn Sina (Avicenna), common sense provides the place in which the senses come together, and which processes sense-data and makes the results available to consciousness. Thus the modern psychological term, "perception", fulfills the same function. Individuals could have different common senses depending on how their personal and social experience has taught them to categorize sensation."

After the word combination "sense-data", this ceases to be what either Aristotle, Avicenna or any of the innumerable scholastics who wrote on the subject said, to my knowledge. Can we please stick to the actual authors? Because this business about perception and a subjective common sense is, at the least, woefully disconnected to the original understanding. The common sense isn't some kind of intellectually conditioned function; it's a sense, which carries the same general meaning as the five "senses". If I see the color grey, hear a howl, and smell wet dog, there's something which unites these impressions, and unites, internally, on the level of sensation, the various different external sensible forms. That's why one may say that they see "a wolf", and not just a lot of appearances which we associate with the concept wolf (this would be a Hobbesian perspective or something, in any case not Aristotelian or Avicennan.)

Also, it's not rational, because all animals having sensation and a need to recognize something beyond pleasure and pain of sensation, according to Aristotle, have this sense, and he didn't say brute animals were rational; by definition, they aren't. I'm speaking of what Aristotle said here, so please don't protest about how animals can be almost human or suchlike. I'm provisionally editing that section.

Just to make things clear, in case it was not already: Aristotle's conception of common sense is, to paraphrase Douglas Adams (may he rest in peace), "almost, but not entirely unlike" the conception of common sense which people have usually used since the time of Locke. It's not the same; not a belief, a set of common opinions, a means of coming to knowledge through likelihood, a phenomenological schema, a set of basic principles, or anything on the level of rationality or consciousness.

TonalHarmony (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words
You don't have to be an experienced Wiki editor to know that "in their opinion" is a weasel phrase. Cite the definitions given by major dictionaries, and don't add unfounded OR about how definitions relate. If there's no scholarly work done comparing dictionary definitions, then say nothing. It isn't the job of Wiki editors to do synthesis. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

-

The article says this: "Often ideas that may be considered to be true by common sense are in fact false."

Even if there were something called 'common sense', as understood by various theorists -- which I doubt -- precisely which "ideas" considered true by 'common sense' are false? Can the author of that bold statement please tell us?

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC) -

About the best you can do is claim common sense comes from a common experience. Otherwise it is a meaningless concept. If common sense were common, more than half the population would have it. Ignorance seems to be more common than hydrogen in the universe. What I have seen and heard to be "common sense" has often ended in disaster and is mostly nonsense. No one is born with knowledge or reasoning. Few know how to detect a fallacy, much less follow a line of logic. So, that which is considered "common knowledge" or "common sense" is like a Unicorn. It is a myth that sounds good and makes us feel less anxious, but it is an exercise in self serving self delusion. If it were innate, we would have found that it could be inherited from parents. If it could be taught, there would be an "ology" and a Ph.D. you could get for it. Some pinhead has angels dancing on his head who gave up on the trail trailing an Invisible Pink Unicorn to assert the existence of "common sense." John Lloyd Scharf 19:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Common Sense is a Myth created by con artists
When we ask - "How do we know that we are not being conned ?", the con artist replies "Because you have common sense". Since the idea is flattering, it is accepted. The ego is incapable of the idea " No, I don't have an intrinsic sense of what is true and what is false. "

People like the idea, so it is perpetuated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.70.195 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need a separate article for sensus communis?
Both articles are still short and could be improved by adding to each other. I personally think that too often on WP editors split of "philosophical" and complicated materials into a FORK article no one will read. (See Nature versus Nature (philosophy) for example. These are both better articles, but again I feel both could be better if merged.) To me the net effect is verging on violating WP:NEUTRAL because it means twisting material in order to fit individual Wikipedians' ideas about presentation and what people "want to know". Maybe this style of split would be more appropriate on something like the Simple English WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice that article does not even refer to this article and contains almost nothing apart from reference to Kant which is precisely something important missing here. So given this is TODAY's article for improvement, I shall be WP:BOLD and try to merge already. I frankly see no reason not to today. If the articles can later be expanded and re-split, then great.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

sources needing checking

 * I notice references saying that Hans Georg Gadamer did a study of this term's history and found Giambattista Vico to be an important turning point. Have not had time to look into it.
 * I am also not confident about our Locke section. Searching through his works I found that Locke used the term common sense in its every day rhetorical sense and not the scholastic Aristotelian one? Maybe whoever placed mention of him here was saying that Locke's did not use the term but simply had arguments concerning the same philosophical subject matter of perception, which of course he did?
 * Also I have not looked into the Kant section or the section on more recent philosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Category of Latin philosophical phrases
Hi. I deleted the connection of this article entry to the category Latin philosophy phrases not as my doing being the final answer but so that someone with the expertise and experience could re-add its link to the Latin philosophy phrase page. Rather than spend the time trying to figure out a way to do so, I figured there may be people with prior experience doing so. I agree and understand why someone would have initially added it as pointed out (by Andrew Lancaster) regarding the Koine Greek, and the article's continued inclusion with that page of phrases. It should be noted that all of the entries on that page are in Latin, with the exception of Common sense. By removing it, I was hoping to motivate someone with the knowledge and skills to post it properly on the Latin philosophy phrase page, to keep the page consistent with the posting of an all Latin phraseology. I have provided a Talkpage explanation of what I have undone and why, so someone with the expertise can take the initiative to effectuate a proper connection. Thanks, Andrew Lancaster for amicably pointing out the necessity to do so... Regards, Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not really familiar with the way things work, so I am not totally sure if I can help. But I have been working on the content of this article in recent months. Any pointers where I can try to look into it? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

New section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense#How_common_is_common_sense.3F
An entire new first section has been added to the article, which I think needs discussion. Indeed it is now the first section, bumping Aristotle out of the way. I post it in its entirety here for discussion:
 * {| border=1

It is not at this moment very polished, so one option to consider is whether it can be cleaned up and its point made more clear. Possibly also, when we identify those points, we might find that they are already covered elsewhere in the article and should be moved (or can be done without). Trying to do this:
 * How common is common sense?
 * When someone hears common sense, the first word that comes to mind is "common" which is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary [8] as "occurring or appearing frequently: not rare." However, Ronald C. Arnett, author of the book Communication Ethics Literacy wrote that common sense is only common to the person it is created by. What is common to one person may not necessarily be common to the next because common sense is established by our upbringings, who we surround ourselves with, one’s environment and personal moralities. Everyone has different versions of common sense so to expect everyone to agree on a universal state of commonality or for someone to adjust their own set of common sense to better suit your own is unethical. [9] The way to overcome the differences in common sense it to think in more “open and rigorous ways” according to Jim Taylor [10] Taylor also writes that common sense is a quick resort for those who lack personal experience and look to what they have been told is true.
 * 8. An Encyclopedia Britannica Company (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common
 * 9. Arnett C. Ronald, Fritz Harden M. Janie, Bell M. Leeanne. (2009). Communication Ethics Literary.
 * 10. Taylor, Jim (2011, July 12). Common Sense is neither Common nor Sense. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense
 * }
 * 9. Arnett C. Ronald, Fritz Harden M. Janie, Bell M. Leeanne. (2009). Communication Ethics Literary.
 * 10. Taylor, Jim (2011, July 12). Common Sense is neither Common nor Sense. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense
 * }
 * 10. Taylor, Jim (2011, July 12). Common Sense is neither Common nor Sense. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201107/common-sense-is-neither-common-nor-sense
 * }
 * My first impression is that to say the least the section is in a bad place. It opens with a statement by a rhetoric expert (Ronald Arnett) giving a remark about the specifically rhetorical meaning of common sense, whereas rhetoric has not yet been handled at this stage in the article.
 * Secondly, the criticism of Arnett is hard to fit, the way it is presented. Is this section simply saying that there is no common sense (in the rhetorical sense of common understandings) apart from that which comes from upbringings? If so, it indeed points us to an age old philosophical question (nature versus nurture to give it its modern trendy name), but not necessarily a question relevant to this article because it does not deny that there is a shared understanding in communities. (We can not cover every subject related to Common Sense, in this one article.)
 * The second source quoted (not counting the dictionary quote) is from a blog, so we should first consider WP:RS. The blog describes Jim Taylor as an academic who writes books about bringing up children.
 * Just my impression but trying to understand the intention is not really just a small recent side show in the bigger debate currently already being covered in the article's citations of bigger names like Kant, Gadamer, Habermas etc.?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Pornographic is too short Your first name is required for Trying not available right now Mix of Want the other card poker game with soup Select images to make your update automatically sent a playlist Save the other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.136.81.96 (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Definition needs explanation- misleading
The article is titled Common Sense and has explanations about the Philosophy of Common Sense and nothing about the Psychology science of Common Sense. The dictionary definition given is misleading in that no scientific evidence exists to support the definition and the science of Common Sense is not in the article.

1. I think the article has to explain the definition is a non-scientific explanation, an everyday definition, a concept, just stating the definition is misleading.


 * I think I am the main editor of this article. I found the sources for this subject are numerous and one obvious question I had to deal with is whether there are actually several subjects, such as a scientific, philosophical etc meanings. In fact I found that this is an interesting and complex case: basically all sources use the term in a way which quite explicitly connects philosophy and common usage such as found in a normal dictionary. I could find no valid consensus on ways to separate these concepts. So this is an every day concept which was influenced by philosophy. In my opinion this is how the lead is written (see the second sentence and not just the first), and this is based on the real sources. It is difficult to understand the criticism so far and I request clarification:
 * Why do you (here and in your edit comments) talk about the opening line being "not scientific"? What does the term "scientific evidence" mean in this context? Are you referring to WP:RS, or something else?


 * Are you not in effect demanding something based on original research as per WP:NOR? If not, please explain your concern in terms of sources.


 * Most practically, I am confused that despite all the mention of being scientific and so on your edits are very simple, and seem to just involve adding words which add no effective meaning. You just want to add the word concept to the opening sentence? How does this make it more "scientific"?


 * In a way, are you not just trying to insert something like what the second sentence already says, into the first sentence? I think this is a common problem on Wikipedia: people read a first sentence, see it is missing something they are interested in, then add it, without reading the article properly. Hence first sentences get longer and longer, trying to say "everything" in one sentence.
 * WP:BEGIN: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."


 * To record what you propose...
 * {|border=1 style="background: green"


 * Currently: "Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without any need for debate. The everyday understanding of what common sense is derived from philosophical discussion, involving several European languages."
 * Proposal: "Common sense is a concept there is basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without any need for debate. The everyday understanding of what common sense is derived from philosophical discussion, involving several European languages."
 * Another proposal: "Common sense is the philosophical concept there is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without any need for debate. The everyday understanding of what common sense is derived from philosophical discussion, involving several European languages."
 * }
 * Finally, I would note that this is a poor sentence, and that the new words add almost no meaning. Again this is a well-known type of problem on first sentences. Consider WP:REFERS.
 * --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Finally, I would note that this is a poor sentence, and that the new words add almost no meaning. Again this is a well-known type of problem on first sentences. Consider WP:REFERS.
 * --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Some extra comments having noticed your remark added into a 2010 discussion above:
 * The opening does not only cite a dictionary, it cites multiple dictionaries and other sources as well, which all demonstrate the substantial agreement on what the word means in both philosophy and ordinary discourse. Note that not only the opening sentence citations are relevant because later paragraphs go into more detail. Indeed more detail is found throughout the whole article and cited in very great detail from a very good range of sources as far as I see?


 * If there is a notable subject within science concerning something called "common sense" please note my remarks above requesting that you explain what published sources discuss this subject, and how we can best deal with it. Might it already be covered in one of the "See Also" articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the article explanations and sources for the subjects of the Philosophy of Common Sense and the "common" use of the term common sense are alright. I think adding text before the definition will help explain what subjects are being defined "in both philosophy and ordinary discourse" and that the definition is not a statements of proven scientific fact.


 * Here are some scientific sources, there are more.  I think adding a science section to the article will help.


 * https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201506/the-psychology-common-sense A review of studies of common sense, the actual study references are within the article.


 * Psycomyths
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=8DlS0gfO_QUC&pg=PT21&lpg=PT21&dq=psychology+common+sense+or+science+myths&source=bl&ots=pLHC_6IBNm&sig=tlQgzvfF34vAWKf5EdU8sIPz8Vs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib1--dzenKAhUGXh4KHbSNAuIQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=psychology%20common%20sense%20or%20science%20myths&f=false


 * Andrew, from your comments I understand your thinking better, hopefully I have clarified my comments?

What are your thoughts now? Thanks, CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Before I even read it though, I am going to try to make the formatting a bit clear, so that we and others can see who wrote what. You might want to be a bit careful about inserting replies within a long explanation. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I have made it pretty ugly, but now hard to miss the inserts! --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I will start to try to respond, breaking it into some thematic points. I hope I cover your main themes. I will sign every point so you can insert if necessary!
 * 1. You keep talking about the opening line as if it is only a dictionary definition, but as mentioned, it clearly is not? As mentioned above, the common meaning is a subject in philosophy. The article is based on philosophical sources now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 2. You talk about calling one section the section about philosophy, but which sections are not currently about philosophy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 3. WP:REFERS is not only about cases where the exact word "refers" is used. By the way that guideline is similar to many style guidelines, and guides on how to write. Similarly, common use definitions normally do not specify that they are common use definitions. It is specialized definitions which need special remarks, and common use is the default and assumed if no special words are added.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 4. I am interested to hear more about what we can write about the term "Common sense" in psychology. I suggest not trying to change the existing article too much until you FIRST have that clear, because for example we may see that the modern psychological subject derives from the older "philosophical" subjects. (This happens a lot in history of idea subjects. Philosophy used to encompass science.) Also, it might justify a seperate article with only a summary section here, because to be honest this article is now fairly long. It all depends of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Chomsky and Crehan
I think it would be useful to include in some sources from Noam Chomsky and Kate Crehan to add to give a more versatile definition of common sense --Laylims (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Which sources specifically? Not sure what versatile means in this context. Perhaps you can explain a bit and make some proposals. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

--49.229.246.144 (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hannah Arendt cropped.jpg

"Common Sense" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Common Sense. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

2 paragraphs from the top of the lead
I am not sure when these were inserted, but they really don't fit in such a prominent position where they interpret the whole flow of the opening. Maybe something from them can be adapted lower down in the article, but the information seems relatively un-notable, and was already tagged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The definition of common sense should not include "shared by (i.e. common to) nearly all people".
"Common sense (often just known as sense) is sound, practical judgment concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge in a manner that is shared by (i.e. common to) nearly all people.[1]"

A judgment is neither sound nor practical by virtue of numbers of people holding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.135.207 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem, because "judgment" is a superset of "common sense judgment". Paradoctor (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Additions to the lead; supposed psychological definition
, you and IP editors keep adding the same information into the lead about how common sense is defined in psychology but the sources are neither appropriate, nor are they showing us any psychological definition of common sense. Based up the edit summaries, the proposed edit clearly seems to be driven not be published literature, but by an idea that this article is too much about philosophy. Notes about the edits:
 * First IP edit. No source. . edit: added these words into a citation of the definition made by C. S. Lewis. generally by using common knowledge, simple logical reasoning, intuition and estimation.
 * 2nd IP edit.  edit: In psychology, common sense is generally said to use common knowledge, simple logical reasoning, intuition and estimation. Supposed source:
 * My revert edsum: Note that this source is not WP:RS. Also it is actually referring to common sense in the context of a philosophical question; not a psychological one.


 * 3rd edit; 1st by ModernDaySlavery . . New source for same text:
 * Mr rvt edsum:


 * 4th edit. 2nd by ModernDaySlavery. edsum:
 * REMARK: This is a blog and not WP:RS. It is also once again not talking about psychology as such but about the philosophy of science.

Two important comments: Can you please stop working in this way? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no reason to make the article less philosophy based if philosophy is the only field which uses this concept as a technical term. Remember that WP is not a dictionary. We don't need to list every way in which words are used, and nor do we need to explain everday concepts. Our article about fire is based upon physics and chemistry for example.
 * 2) If there is a real and different definition of common sense used in psychology then we might need to split this article up. We would need good sources FIRST and then we would need to consider carefully. What you are doing is the wrong way around: inserting the assertion before you have proven that it can be sourced with proper sources.


 * https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-02740-001 ModernDaySlavery (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22common+sense%22+%22psychology%22 so there are many examples ModernDaySlavery (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the sources you are citing, "common sense" ideas ABOUT psychology, ie about the science, are being contrasted and/or compared to more scientific approaches to psychology. In other words these are discussions about the philosophy of science, within psychology articles (or blogs etc). For example https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-02740-001 talks about the influence of common sense upon psychologists, not upon people being studied by psychologists. This is still philosophy (or its branch epistemology). Secondly it is still clear that you are very quickly googling around to find something to suit what you were already decided upon inserting. Just based on the speed and the insappropriateness of the sources, I can't believe you are even reading these sources? I suggest you should slow down and try to find evidence, if it exists, of an actual psychological definition of common sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here https://www.google.com/books/edition/Beyond_Common_Sense/G7lGt8UkU_AC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22common+sense%22+%22intuition%22+%22common+knowledge%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover ModernDaySlavery (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again so fast. What do you think this shows? I don't see any discussion about a psychological definition of common sense. I just see a text mentioning common knowledge and intuition?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It includes common sense in a psychological context. ModernDaySlavery (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not enought to justify your edits. Common sense is an everyday term used in basically any and every field. Consider my comment above about fire.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that there isn't a single mention of intuition in a non philosophical context in the article for common sense is insane for me. Have a look at dictionaries how they use together/consider as synonym/associate "common sense" and "inutition".   . Why does a single sentence bother you so much? ModernDaySlavery (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because you are trying to publish your own opinions on WP, and using sources wrongly. If I understand correctly you have not got much experience on WP? If you go around changing leads this way you can expect far harsher reactions. I am trying to help you understand the way we work here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want we can ask for a third opinion? ModernDaySlavery (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, more opinions might be interesting. But at the moment you have not really given any WP policy-relevant reason at all to accept your edit. Until you do there is really not so much to talk about. You have no appropriate sources and your argument is Why does a single sentence bother you so much? On Wikipedia it is up to editors who want to add information to make the case for the editions, and explain them in ways consistent with WP policy. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)