Common sense is over rated. The only reason anyone would say that anything non-trivial is common sense is because they cannot or will not justify it for other reasons. People appealing to common sense usually do so regarding matters where evidence and careful argument is mandatory. "Geopolitics, only common sense!", "Economics, only common sense!", "The mind, it's common sense!". It's usually just another way to avoid providing evidence or argument and to mock whoever or whatever you disagree with. A "salt of the earth" version of self evidence. — fdrake

While the above is a true report of some, it is not a true report of all... uses of "common sense". The notion of "common sense" when used to classify some belief or other, can be an irrevocably important aspect used to compel the audience to place the utmost importance upon the simplest of true statements, arguments, and/or lines of thought.

I will employ the notion of common sense in the appropriate circumstances.

You quoted my response to you and compared it to another's response to you. In doing so, you managed to completely avoid what we were talking about.

One has to know what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. That's the easy part. The hard part is remembering that after inadequate language use begins.

You quoted my response to you and compared it to another's response to you. In doing so, you managed to completely avoid what we were talking about. — creativesoul

Sorry. My apologies.

Well, firstly my take on "common sense" is that it's a nebulous concept. What exactly does it mean? Is common sense just another name for logic or is it something else altogether like an attitude of pragmatism, stressing on being realistic about life and everything else?

If it means logic then as I already mentioned logic isn't the source of our differences, isn't the reason behind opposing views. We differ in our opinions/views/philosophies not because of problems in logic but because we've made incompatible assumptions. Assumptions, as we all know, are not proven - they, by definition, need no argument. Ergo, it must be that when people assume different things, it's not a logical problem unless you can come up with a reductio ad absurdum argument to disprove them.

If so, the right way to deal with this issue of opposing views is to investigate how we make assumptions. What are your views on this? As far as I know, assumptions are either purportedly self-evident (most philosophical positions I assume) or else arbitrary ( like in math). As you can see, the only kind of assumption that concerns us are the self-evident ones. The problem is that there are many self-evident "truths" out there that can be assumed and there's a good chance that these assumptions will lead to opposing conclusions. Thus, the source of conflict can be traced to assumptions that clash with each other.

Presumably "common sense" denotes a certain type of knowledge that can be qualified and quantified. Something akin to our prejudicative grasp of background knowledge maybe? Probably we all lie somewhere on a spectrum of accuracy with respect to this.

Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

It is as others have said the Platonic method of dialogue. But one can say some more about the elements of dialogue. First, it requires an assumption of equality. We must begin our dialogue with the assumption that we are both able to change our opinions and both able to understand each other. This begins the second element - finding the common ground.

We need the common ground at least of this much in order to even disagree. So if one is unable to begin this dialogue with an equality and an engagement that will look for first common ground and then for the detail of disagreement, then it all becomes impossible. Someone, for example, with a strong sense of superiority, or even infallibility, cannot begin such a conflict resolution, but will resort to authority, dictat, threats or insults. They cannot communicate.

Thus the answer, without discussion, "Logic." partakes of this authoritarian attitude. One might suppose that reputable logicians have never been known to disagree. Yet we surely know that this is not the case, and so the word becomes nothing more than a stick to beat one with.

Presumably "common sense" denotes a certain type of knowledge that can be qualified and quantified. Something akin to our prejudicative grasp of background knowledge maybe? Probably we all lie somewhere on a spectrum of accuracy with respect to this. — Pantagruel

Descartes' quote which you posted a couple of rows above suggests Descartes had a very high opinion of common sense which leads me to believe he equated it to what these days we call critical thinking.

What is critical thinking?

Critical thinking or Descartes' common sense encompasses a broad range of skills inclusive of formal logic, ability to identify/avoid fallacies, recognizing and steering clear of cognitive biases - both our own and that of others, knowing how to and where to look for supporting evidence and be proficient in judging their quality, and to be, above all, dedicated to the truth whether comforting or not.

Descartes' quote which you posted a couple of rows above suggests Descartes had a very high opinion of common sense which leads me to believe he equated it to what these days we call critical thinking. — TheMadFool

I am very much aligned with your introduction of the concept of critical thinking, as a recent convert to Popper's theories of critical realism. However I must point out that you have misconstrued Descartes' account of common sense. Descartes is acknowledging that there is a universal tendency to believe that one is possessed of common sense, but the fact that no one "desires more" than they already have implies that this is can also be a huge "blind spot."

I would say that common sense is the prime target of critical thinking. In more modern parlance, excavating our prejudicative presuppositions, so-called background knowledge of which the lebenswelt is constructed.

Descartes is acknowledging that there is a universal tendency to believe that one is possessed of common sense, but the fact that no one "desires more" than they already have implies that this is can also be a huge "blind spot." — Pantagruel

I thought he was being sarcastic - scoffing at people who are under the impression that they have common sense when in fact they do not. Anyway :up:

Logic presupposes truth. — creativesoul

This is a strange response considering it's the TLDR version of 's post and you said,

Ah drake...

That deserves permanent preservation!

Brilliant. Beautiful. Clear. Concise. Germane. Practical.

The agreement resonated within while reading. Literally... a visceral affect/effect.

Thank you. My respect for you has just increased exponentially. — creativesoul

Anyway, logic is presupposed by every sentence and every thought. Even by doubting the laws of logic, you’ve affirmed them, as thinking that something “might be false” presupposes that there’s such a thing as “true” and “false” in the first place.

Even by doubting the laws of logic, you’ve affirmed them, as thinking that something “might be false” presupposes that there’s such a thing as “true” and “false” in the first place. — Harry Hindu

There's always the question of which logic is appropriate for the task, and which describes people's conduct the best. Say we go back in time and people are still wrestling with electron orbitals and coulomb's law; people were committed to theory that entailed that electrons would be slowly drawn to the nucleus of an atom through electrostatic attraction, but people also knew that didn't happen. The theory predicted one thing, and was believed to some degree, the experiments found another. People still believed in the predictions of Coulomb's law by and large, but stopped applying it. They didn't act in accordance with the principle of explosion and suddenly believe arbitrary positions because they believed a contradiction, they stopped the explosion by restricting the applicability of Coulomb's law in calculating the distribution of positions of electrons in atoms.

Most arguments people make do not obey classical propositional logic, or paraconsistent logic, or any other formal logic. Most arguments scientists make do not rely on any formalisation of inductive logic; there aren't logical constraints on what makes a sensible explanatory hypothesis in general, they are domain specific.

I don't see where your post disagrees with what you quoted, so I take it as an agreement that:

logic is presupposed by every sentence and every thought. — Harry Hindu

I mean, you entire post presupposes some truth.

Do you think there's more than one logic?

If you're asking if I think that there is any kind of logic that isn't presupposed by every sentence and every thought, then no.

If you are asking if I think that there is any logic that doesn't presuppose that there is such a thing as true and false, then no.

f you're asking if I think that there is any kind of logic that isn't presupposed by every sentence and every thought, then no.

If you are asking if I think that there is any logic that doesn't presuppose that there is such a thing as true and false, then no. — Harry Hindu

I think dialectical logic transcends the simple true-false dyad of traditional logic.

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/4/4/69/pdf

Thus the answer, without discussion, "Logic." partakes of this authoritarian attitude. One might suppose that reputable logicians have never been known to disagree. Yet we surely know that this is not the case, and so the word becomes nothing more than a stick to beat one with. — unenlightened

And so we find ourselves arguing about the length of the stick and who has the better grasp on it. And the original question is quite forgotten.

I think dialectical logic transcends the simple true-false dyad of traditional logic. — Pantagruel

Does this statement presuppose some truth about what you think, and that you think?

And so we find ourselves arguing about the length of the stick and who has the better grasp on it. And the original question is quite forgotten. — unenlightened

Seems like we have a real live example of a conflict to resolve....

Does this statement presuppose some truth about what you think, and that you think? — Harry Hindu

The statement is not about me, it is about dialectical logic. You are conflating the reference of the statement with its origin. Smacks of the genetic fallacy. Dialectical logic can be many-valued.

The statement is not about me, it is about dialectical logic. You are conflating the reference of the statement with its origin. Smacks of the genetic fallacy. Dialectical logic can be many-valued. — Pantagruel

Of course it is. It is about what you think:

I think dialectical logic transcends the simple true-false dyad of traditional logic. — Pantagruel

It even presupposes that thinking exists and that you think things.

Thus the answer, without discussion, "Logic." partakes of this authoritarian attitude. One might suppose that reputable logicians have never been known to disagree. Yet we surely know that this is not the case, and so the word becomes nothing more than a stick to beat one with. — unenlightened

Logic, like any other process, puts out what you put in. If you put in false premises, you will get false conclusions.

Logic also helps you to determine what to put in. Appeals to popularity, authority, and the genetic fallacy are all logical fallacies. So it seems to me that one kind of logic not being applied appropriately has a detrimental effect on the rest of your types of logic that you might use.

What laws does the logic you're talking about follow?

Intellectual hygiene. — fdrake

:100:
Great stuff, I regularly screw up on these and then afterwards realize something is wrong but can't always articulate it. A list like this is gold. Stick it together and pin it in the learning centre!

If you are asking if I think that there is any logic that doesn't presuppose that there is such a thing as true and false, then no. — Harry Hindu

Even if we allow that it is trivially true that my statement is really my statement, you asked merely if there was any logic that doesn't presuppose true and false. I merely pointed out that dialectical logic transcends the true-false simpliciter dyad. I'm prepared to acknowledge that it is always true that I have made any statement I have made. Are you prepared to expand the concept of modal logic beyond the scope of true and false?

What laws does the logic you're talking about follow? — fdrake

The law of non-contradicton.

Even if we allow that it is trivially true that my statement is really my statement, — Pantagruel

I would like to suggest to you, in relation to the topic we are supposed to be discussing, that this conflict cannot be resolved, because no genuine communication is taking place. You might as well argue with Trump, because you are a a very bad person, and very illogical, and you are dealing with a very stable genius.

Even if we allow that it is trivially true that my statement is really my statement, you asked merely if there was any logic that doesn't presuppose true and false. I merely pointed out that dialectical logic transcends the true-false simpliciter dyad. I'm prepared to acknowledge that it is always true that I have made any statement I have made. Are you prepared to expand the concept of modal logic beyond the scope of true and false? — Pantagruel

Just read the first sentence in the link you provided. It presupposes some truth.

In making your statement you are presupposing the truth that "dialectical logic transcends the true-false simpliciter dyad".

Your argument is self-defeating.

I would like to suggest to you, in relation to the topic we are supposed to be discussing, that this conflict cannot be resolved, because no genuine communication is taking place. You might as well argue with Trump, because you are a a very bad person, and very illogical, and you are dealing with a very stable genius. — unenlightened

The topic we are supposed to be talking about isn't a political one. You might want to remove those politically partisan glasses you have on.

LNC doesn't give you a logic by itself. It says very little about valid inferences; or plausibility of claims; or evidentiary status; it just tells you not to believe something and its negation at the same time. This is nowhere near enough.

The topic we are supposed to be talking about isn't a political one. — Harry Hindu

That's right Harry, I forgot, there's no conflict of opinion in politics is there?