Common Sense vs. Science – Chomsky
Photo by NASA
Chomsky separates common sense from scientific study in their purposes, resources, and methodologies. Once separated, it becomes apparent that utilizing common sense to solve scientific problems often produces inaccurate results, while utilizing scientific study to solve common sense problems often produces unfavorable results. In this paper, we will first briefly look at the school of thought on which Chomsky builds his philosophy. Then, we will discuss the major differences between the natures of common sense and scientific study. Within that framework, we will look specifically at their differences in purpose, resources, and methodology. I will then briefly provide a few examples highlighting the consequences of using common sense to solve scientific problems and vice versa. Finally, we will briefly look at how Chomsky’s separation of common sense and scientific study applies to his other work.
Working under the framework of philosopher-scientists, Chomsky is heavily influenced by the works of Descartes and Galileo (Compaion). Chomsky, especially in his study of linguistics, uses their mantra of collaborating philosophical thought with the scientific method. It was, in fact, Descartes who, in his Discourse, describes the concept of ‘bon sens’ – an innate capacity for practical problem solving, given by God – as separate from forming sciences (Ref Discourse).
The nature of common sense (bon sens) is described by Chomsky as something that is natural and inherent. It is fluid in form and meant to solve day-to-day practical problems, providing solutions that we rely on for comfort and survival. Furthermore, it readily adapts to various social, cultural, and circumstantial situations. I speculate that, unlike Descartes, Chomsky sees the capacity of common sense as biological, arising from a combination of brain complexity and ‘native resources’ (companion); nevertheless, the central idea is that everyone is born with, and relies on, the ability to integrate into life and society.
Contrary to common sense, the primary goal of scientific study is not a solution to practical problems but rather the simplification of the world and its mechanisms. Participation requires a high level of sophistication and background knowledge, and thus individual study of it is limited to specific areas and not the whole of science. Furthermore, scientific study is instructive and not inherent.
The differences in the purpose of common sense and that of scientific study can be seen in how they are measured to be effective. The effectiveness of common sense is measured by its ability to solve practical problems while the value of scientific study is measured by its ability to simplify the understanding of everything that exists – with no regard of how it may, or may not, impact human life. Of course, science – and its extension, technology – helps us immensely with solving day-to-day problems, but that is only a side-effect. While common sense is a requirement for survival and social integration, scientific study is a requirement for fulfilling the desire for knowledge and a simpler explanation of what the universe is and how it works.
Because they are driven towards different goals, it is no surprise that the resources used by common sense and those used by scientific study also differ. Whereas scientific study uses premises that are irrespective of culture, society, and human circumstance, focusing on facts that are objectively valid given certain physical conditions (eg. the boiling point of water at a certain vapor pressure), common sense acts, accordingly, within cultural and societal bias (eg. “When is lying acceptable?”). Furthermore, because the process of solving common sense problems are so influenced by temporal and cultural circumstances and because the problems themselves often require a relatively timely solution, they must be tacked on a case-to-case basis. That is, their solutions lack the ability to be built perfectly consistent upon one another to form universal truths, but only traditional guidelines. The nature of scientific study on the other hand, requires the collaboration of many people, from many places, over the stretch of millenniums. Because solving the major question of science requires an extremely high level of sophistication, a level that no one person could reasonably posses in one lifetime, science must be structured to allow consistent and efficient combinations of theories, facts, and laws. Its objective nature encourages this collaboration to take place. Finally, common sense utilizes innate, flexibly organized, rich and productive native systems while scientific study requires the scientist to learn its methods, requirements, processes, and semantics.
There are two major methodological differences between common sense and scientific study. The first difference is the time it takes to solve a problem. Of course, practical problems demand practical solutions and a practical solution is a timely solution. This results in common sense solutions being relatively simplistic, and not necessarily the most efficient. However, they solve the problem at hand successfully – without the need for sophisticated instruction. Because scientific study is not primarily concerned with solving problems quickly, but rather producing the simplest, thus best, solution – a timely solution is less of an issue. Furthermore, because science relies on the formal tools of highly focused inquiry and the unpredictable, yet crucial, fruits of invention, progress is usually relatively slow. The second difference is in how good scientific solutions and good common sense solutions are validated. Common sense solutions are validated by their consistency with the problem solver’s experiences while scientific solutions are validated by their consistency with replicated experiments throughout the scientific community. Their difference in validation provides a good segue to the consequences of using common sense to solve scientific problems, and vice versa.
It is not often that the most obvious explanation is the correct one[1]. Since common sense premises and methodologies differ from scientific study, it can be expected that using common sense to answer scientific questions rarely yields accurate results. A popular example is the rate of decent of a feather and a hammer in a chamber with zero air resistance. Common sense denies us from considering the properties of zero air resistance, as it is almost impossible, in day-to-day life, to encounter such a phenomenon. Because of this limitation, all our experiences of objects descending take air resistance for granted. The result is a common sense understanding of the rate of decent as a property of the object itself – a result of its shape, material, or weight – rather than its interaction with air. Thus, common sense will predict the hammer falling much faster than the feather while, in reality, they both fall at the exact same rate. An example of using scientific methods to solve common sense problems is that of a chef choosing the proper knife to peel an apple. A scientific solution would involve intricate measuring of the thickness of the apple skin, the effectiveness of different knife angles, the hardness of various metals, and how the knife length, size, weight, and handle interacts with the human hand. By the time the study is done, the apple would have rotted – or snatched by a rodent who decided to just eat it with the skin. A common sense solution, however, would suggest the chef use the knife he last used for peeling; and if it wasn’t available, to try two or three knives before settling on the one he prefers. It is very possible that he doesn’t choose the best knife, but at least he gets to eat the apple. In essence, it is important to first differentiate between a common sense problem from a scientific problem, before deciding on the method to solving it, as using the wrong method is likely to produce unfavorable (using science to solve practical problems) or inaccurate (using common sense to solve scientific problems) results.
There are three notable aspects of Chomsky’s work that rely on this separation between common sense and scientific study. Unfortunately, explaining them in depth is beyond the scope of this paper, so I will only briefly list them. First, Chomsky approaches his work in linguistics from a naturalistic and scientific manner. His theory that language is not a cultural phenomenon, but rather a native, and biological, capacity moves linguistics from the sphere of social science into traditional neurobiology; and the results of his studies conflict with many common sense notions of language. Secondly, Chomsky’s argument that every person has the capacity to participate in political debate and democracy requires common sense to be both inherent in people and able to solve political problems. Finally, Chomsky’s belief in inherent ‘moral sense’ is contingent on inherent common sense and its role in providing the capacity for compassion, love, solidarity, and sympathy. Suffice to say, the differentiation between common sense and scientific study has larger implication than simply finding the right method to solve different types of problems.
[1] This statement does not, as it may first seem, refute ‘Occam’s razor’ – as obvious solutions are not necessarily the same as simple solutions.