Martin Parr/Magnum Photos
In the 18th century, philosopher James Beatty compiled a list of 17 common sense beliefs. Some of them are uncontroversial: “I exist,” “The whole is greater than the part,” “Virtue and vice are different,” etc. But others seem unnecessarily moralistic: “Ingratitude should be condemned and punished,” “I have a soul separate from my body,” “God exists,” etc. And some are scientifically debatable: “Sensations can be believed,” “I am the same being I was yesterday, or twenty years ago,” “Truth exists,” etc. Overall, his list seems quaint and outdated. Worse, it doesn’t offer a clear idea of what common sense is. Surely, we can do better.
At first glance, common sense seems easy to define. It is generally regarded as knowledge or belief that is, or should be, obvious to everyone. But it is strangely difficult to pin down. While it is often portrayed as universal, it is also frequently claimed not to exist. With that in mind, it may come as a surprise to hear that no one has ever attempted to measure the “generality” of this knowledge or its essential nature (“common sense”). Surprisingly, this research shows that common sense may not be general at all.
If this is true, the implications are enormous. From parenting to politics, from public health to the law, common sense matters. It’s also increasingly becoming a technological issue, with computer scientists building it into artificially intelligent robots…
