Scott Greenfield was ranting against relying too much on “common sense”:
One of the offshoots of the push that resulted in the elevation of George W. Bush to the presidency was the empowerment of “regular” people. This meant that views and opinions, under the category of “common sense,” were raised to a level equal to, or above, that of thoughtful analysis.
…
One of the things I hope to bring to the conversation is the rejection of those who, through their prolific attacks, their vapid points and their offensive vehemence, push “common sense” at the expense of actual thought. I understand that thinking hurts, but no pain, no gain.
Some of the folks Scott is talking about don’t just ignore thoughtful analysis, they attack it. When their opponents offer data and theories and analysis, they accuse them of attempting to confuse people, of attempting to obscure the obvious truth revealed by common sense. We see a lot of that in the blogosphere, a fair amount of it from mainstream media pundits, and all too much of it from our political class.
Years ago, I read an article by economist Paul Krugman in which he gave people like this a very appropriate name. He calls them accidental theorists.
Regardless of what you call it, any general claim about how the world works is a theory. You can call it common sense or plain truth or straight talk, but if you make any claim more general than an observable fact, you’re essentially proposing a theory. This theory can be examined and tested and compared to other theories about the same subject.
Some of these “common sense” theories have been tested and found wanting. Others don’t even have to be tested because they are internally inconsistent. Many are rhetorical tricks that have no substance.
That’s not to say that common sense theories are always wrong. It’s just that they have to be checked, like anything other theory.
Leave a Reply