Is Common Sense a Suitable Aid for Logic?

The concept of common sense often appears synonymous with wisdom and everyday reasoning, yet its role in logical conclusions remains a topic of debate among scholars and thinkers. Common sense is typically defined as sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge. However, this simple definition opens the door to complex discussions about the reliability and applicability of common sense in rigorous logical frameworks.

Understanding Common Sense

Common sense involves drawing logical conclusions based on real-world observations and experiences. For example, anyone can observe the sun in the sky and notice that it moves over the course of a day. The statement 'the sun is moving in the sky' accurately reflects this observation. Subsequent daily checks reveal a consistent pattern: the sun appears to return to the same position in the sky approximately every 24 hours. This leads to the common sense conclusion that the sun turns around the earth, a belief that has been widely held throughout human history.

The Reliability of Common Sense

The observation and logic used to conclude that the sun turns around the earth are based on repeated empirical evidence. Despite this, many scientists argue that from a scientific perspective, the earth actually orbits around the sun. This discrepancy underscores the idea that common sense and specialized knowledge are both approximations of truth, rather than absolute facts.

Despite the dictionary's definition, there is no fundamental difference between common sense and specialized knowledge. Both are based on careful and repeated observation and the application of logic. In fact, what we consider to be common sense today may be scientifically refuted tomorrow. This flexibility and adaptability make both common sense and specialized knowledge valuable in their respective contexts.

Comparing Common Sense and Specialized Knowledge

Many scientists argue that the common sense belief that the sun turns around the earth is fundamentally incorrect. They contend that the earth moves around the sun, a view supported by complex scientific evidence and calculations. However, the day-to-day observation of the sun moving in the sky provides a first approximation that is sufficient for most practical purposes.

The exact nature of the earth's orbit is more complex and involves multiple celestial influences. For instance, the earth's orbit is affected not only by the sun but also by other planets in the solar system and even by other stars in our galaxy. This complexity means that while the earth orbits the sun, the approximation that the earth turns around the sun for practical purposes is often adequate.

Similarly, the common sense belief that the sun turns around the earth is also a first approximation. Therefore, there is no fundamental difference between the common sense belief and the specialized knowledge of science. Both are approximations of truth that are useful in specific contexts.

Equivocation and Logical Consistency

Equivocation, which is the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth, is a logical fallacy. When we use equivocal language or arguments, we are not being consistent in our reasoning. For example, if we use the term 'turning around' in a way that is not clearly defined, we are engaging in equivocation. This can lead to confusion and misinterpretation.

To maintain logical consistency, it is crucial to clearly define our terms and use them consistently throughout our reasoning. For instance, if we state that the sun moves in the sky, we should mean that from our perspective, the sun appears to move, rather than using the term 'turns around' in a way that is not clear.

Conclusion

While common sense and specialized knowledge may differ in their scope and application, both are valuable when used appropriately. Common sense provides a practical and reliable basis for everyday reasoning, while specialized knowledge offers a deeper understanding of the complex mechanisms that govern the universe. By recognizing the limitations and approximations inherent in both approaches, we can make more informed and accurate logical conclusions.