Common Sense and Science - Essay Example

Common Sense and ScienceScience differs from common sense in many ways. First, unlike common sense, science tests theories and hypothesis using systematic and empirical methods. Such is the case that psychological research has it that the default mode of human information processing commonly comes under the influence of confirmation bias. In the absence of proper checks, most people intuitively, select or notice beliefs, ideas, or facts that fit within their assumptions about the world and dismiss the rest (Pope, 1998).

For instance, common sense reasoning readily agrees with the idea that Sun goes round the Earth for the reason that it certainly looks like it does. In this regard human feel like they are the center of the earth, why not agree to a belief that confirms that notion? Such constraints limitation is not part of Science.Another difference lies in the science control for possibly irrelevant sources of influence. On the other hand, common sense fails to control such possibilities hence resulting in the chains of causation and explanation becoming tangled.

In this case, science rigorously excludes factors known to affect the outcome when attempting to explain phenomena. This serves to bring out the areas where relationships occur. Common senses lack this controls.Correlation and Causation is the next area of difference. Here, science conscientiously and systematically follows “real” relationships supported by evidence and theory. Common sense on the other side does not. For example, common sense makes us believe that giving children more sugar makes them more hyperactive.

Science brings this out in the opposite way. There are many possible correlations everywhere, however that does not imply much if we cannot prove it.Science systematically and conscientiously pursues “real” relationships backed by theory and evidence. Common sense does not. Common sense leads us to believe that giving children sugar causes them to be more hyperactive. Science shows us that this is not the case (Douglas, 2000). We see possible correlations everywhere, but that does not mean much if we cannot prove it.

“It seems right” is not enough.Finally, there is a difference with regard to Metaphysics where science disregards untestable “metaphysical” explanation, a fact that common sense readily accepts. In this case, science holds little concern for the things, which cannot be tested or observed (at least tangentially) .This, explains why religious based explanation of scientific ideas, i.e. creationism fails the science test and thus considered not important in the science class.Belief perseverance is the tendency by human to uphold, and even reinforce, beliefs in the face of disconfirming truth that serves to question the research.

There exist a relationship between belief and common senses in that belief is considered a common sense if the belief proves to be true and if the advocate has a good reason (sensible, and of necessity credible assertion/guidance/evidence) for believing it is true. In this regard, a false belief fails the test of being a common sense even if it is sincere. Believes perseverance works against critical thinking as the emotional response to preserve a belief interjects individual feelings and biases that frustrates critical thinking (Paul & Elder, 2003).

Discussion serves as one of the possible ways that ensures critical thinking in the presence of personal belief system. This approach allows individuals to dig deep into an issue under discussion to reach get at a sensible, necessary and credible assertion/guidance/evidence for believing it is true.References Douglas, N. L. (2000). Enemies of critical thinking: Lessons from social psychology research. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 129-144. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). Critical thinking: Teachingstudents how to study and learn (Part III).

Journal of DevelopmentalEducation, 26(3), 36–37. Pope, K. S. (1998). Pseudoscience, cross-examination, andscientific evidence in the recovered memory controversy. Psychology,Public Policy, & Law, 4(4), 1160–1181.