A Poor Master
In a wilderness of common sense, science stands a lonely pinnacle
One of the strongest features of science is that it can correct our seriously flawed cognition and give us an unfiltered view of reality. Most people put a lot of faith into relying on common sense and intuition, but as any psychologist will tell you, this faith is misplaced.
Science helps us to understand the universe by freeing us from a reliance on gut-feelings or unchecked reasoning hopelessly rooted in the unsystematic software of our brains. Common sense, as a product of this software, will never get us as far as we may wish.
Common sense is a poor master…it’s only criterion is that new ideas look like old ones.
Science versus Common Sense
Science, as a way of thinking, possesses many vital qualities for true understanding that common sense does not. Based on observations we make, science operates under theories, constantly revised and checked by experiment. Based on the required validity that we need to make judgments, science tests its own propositions, throwing out the theories which do not fit our world. Science also has controls, or ways of eliminating other explanations that may fit our preconceptions and intuitions but do not adequately explain phenomena. Causation, itself crucial to decision-making and judgment, can only reliably be determined through analytical methods that common sense pretends to involve but does not. Lastly, science rules out the metaphysical (so far). Common sense allows us to believe that ghosts, goblins, and angels run amok throughout our world, themselves causal agents of events in our lives. To suggest that angels cured your disease, and not modern medicine, for example, is exactly why common sense is such a poor master.
We will take all of these components in turn. Hopefully, by the end, you will realize that the chains of intuition and common sense that bind you should be cast off, unless you prefer the darkness of ignorant assumption.
Theory
Theories construct the enterprise of science. A theory is an abstraction that applies to variety of circumstances, explaining relationships and phenomena, based upon objective evidence. For example, evolution is a theory that applies to a wide range of phenomena (the diversity of life, development, etc.), and explains the observations of said phenomena, all of which is based upon evidence. Gravity too is a theory, explaining the phenomena that we observe in interactions of bodies with mass.
To get technical:
Science uses conceptual schemes and theoretical structures built through internal consistency which are empirically tested.
Scientists also realize that these are man-made terms that may or may not exhibit a close relationship to reality (but with objectivity we try our best).
The distinction between this structure of thought and common sense should be, well, common sense. Common sense has no structure to it, is explicitly subjective, and is subject to all manner of cognitive biases. There is no need for testing, replication, or verification when you are reasoning for yourself. No checks for you to pass or fail, no peers reviewing. It is no wonder why science is so much better at explaining things.
Testing/Verification
Unlike common sense or intuition, science systematically and empirically tests theories and hypothesis. This is important when viewed in the light that psychological research shows us that the default mode of human information processing includes the confirmation bias, which is a form of selective testing, and unworthy of scientific thinking.
If unchecked, most people intuitively notice or select ideas, beliefs, or facts that fit within what they already assume the world to be like and dismiss the rest. Common sense reasoning has no problem with the idea that the Sun goes around the Earth because it sure looks like it does, doesn’t it? Humans already feel like they are the center of the universe, why not accept a belief that confirms that notion? Science is free from such constraints.
Controls
Science controls for possibly extraneous sources of influence. The lay public does not control for such possibilities, and therefore the chains of causation and explanation become tangled.
When trying to explain a phenomena, science rigorously excludes factors that may affect an outcome so that it can be sure where the real relationships are. Common sense has no such control. The person who believes that a full moon increases the rate of crime does not control this hypothesis. Without control they may never see that statistics speak to the contrary. Assuming a connection is never as meaningful as proving one.
Correlation and Causation
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 hyper. Science shows us that this is not the case. We see possible correlations everywhere, but that does not mean much if we can’t prove it. “It seems right” is not enough.
When we use science to actually establish causation, it is for the betterment of society. For a long time the tobacco industry would have us believe that smoking did not lead to lung cancer, it is merely a correlation. Medical science has now shown unequivocally that smoking causes lung cancer. How could common sense ever lead us to this healthy conclusion? Would common sense ever intuit that smoke hurts your lungs or that it contains harmful chemicals? It may seem like common sense now, but remember that hindsight is 20/20. People who began smoking 60 years ago had no clue that it was harmful. Even children smoked back then. Could common sense ever grasp the methodological measures required to prove such a harmful connection? I do not think so. That’s why we use science.
Metaphysics
Science rules out untestable, “metaphysical” explanations where common sense does not. That which cannot be observed (at least tangentially) or tested is of no concern to science. This is why religious-based explanations of scientific concepts, i.e. creationism, is not a science and has no business in the science classroom.
Ghosts and goblins may be thought to be the causes of many a shenanigan, but their reluctance to be tested or observed renders them, at least scientifically, non-existent. If they have no effects that cannot be explained naturally, if they are invisible, if they interact with no one and are only revealed in anecdotes, what is the difference between those qualities and non-existence? Metaphysical explanations so far offer nothing to the understanding of the natural world. Common sense invokes them heavily, see the problem?
Casting Off the Chains
We are just not as smart as we think we are and common sense won’t help rectify that. It did not lead us to invent microwaves, planes, space shuttles, cell phones, satellites, particle accelerators, or skyscrapers, nor did it to the discovery of other galaxies, cures for infectious disease, or radioactivity, science did. Everything that makes your life better than those who came before us is due to science. You would probably not live past 40 if it wasn’t for scientific thinking.
You may amble your way through life, with a common sense master, assuming connections and learning little, but only a scientific structure of thought will teach you about the universe. And what else could you do with your short time in the sun other than contribute to human understanding of the greatest mysteries?
Science-Based Life 
“Science rules out the metaphysical (so far).” This is a very honest statement, and I congratulate you for it. Science cannot prove or disprove God. That does not mean God exists (or doesn’t exist).
You are still rather young, with a vibrant belief that science holds the key to _all_ truth. But some day you will realize that is just not the case. (Others cling to psychology, or philosophy, or art, or –yes– even religion.) There are more disciplines/aspects to life than science. And they all complement each other.
Let me combine those two ideas together with this statement: Math (a logical discipline) cannot prove or disprove beautiful Art (an aesthetic discipline). Yet undoubtedly much beautiful Art exists in the world, wouldn’t you agree? Therefore there must be another way, besides logic, to test/assert/rate the beauty of aesthetics. Similarly, science cannot prove or disprove Metaphysic (by definition) and God. And yet, there is a way to find out if He exists.
Thank you for your input.
I appreciate your “you cannot prove that God doesn’t exist” argument. Thought it may seemingly add to what you may consider to be truth that science cannot elucidate, the argument is a hollow one. There is no existential difference between your God (I assume from your Mormon affiliation) and unicorns, ghosts, or goblins. All have books written about them, have stories told about them, have been claimed to been seen by people, are “untestable”, go back thousands of years, etc. However, saying that because you cannot disprove something, gives credence to its existence, is a jump that cannot be taken. Science looks for the best explanations to observed phenomena. As I said in the post, so far, there is no reason to believe that anything supernatural, otherworldly, or paranormal is acting in our universe. There may be some ideas that we cannot disprove, but precisely because they cannot be disproved is why they are worthless explanations.
Remember, science cannot truly “prove” anything, it leaves the possibility for revision. However, just because we cannot definitively rule a statement out does not mean that we should weigh it equally with other explanations.
Secondly, I believe that my youth has little to do with my beliefs. I have taken philosophy/psychology/art/religious courses and have reflected upon them. I agree that they all contribute to the varieties of the life experience, but they do not all contribute to the truths of the machinery of nature. I appreciate art, but the best art would tell me little about how galaxies have formed, why the sky is blue, or how to curtail global climate change.
Lastly, I think that you are conflating separate ideas. Art is amazing, and beautiful pieces undoubtedly move me. However, art is subjective, math is not. There can be no absolute agreement on what “beautiful” is, but there can be for what “2+2” is. If we are searching for the truths of the natural world, we must stay objective, not subjective. We have too much going on in our brains to counter such rigorous and systematic evaluation. That is why we need science.
Disciplines such as art of course add to quality of life, but they do not add to the search for the truth. Again using your beauty example, I could change what you consider beautiful by simply poking or prodding your brain in the correct manner, giving you a certain drug, or priming you with a certain mindset. Beauty is itself a wondrous construction, but it is entirely dependent on our physiology, brain chemistry, and cultural normatives. Therefore to explore such a dense topic, science is needed. Opinions of beauty mean nothing if what we want to understand is why a certain arrangement of neurons evaluates a certain assortment of lines and colors to be “beautiful”.
Finally, you mention that “there is a way to find out if He [God] exists.” I would like to hear it.
“Art is subjective, math is not.” This is not entirely true. Yes, the same numbers/experiments run through an algorithm/tests will produce the same results (barring side-effects), but which algorithm to apply to a given problem is often subjective. Thus the phrase “a logical conclusion based on an illogical premise”, which is an oxymoron.
Since you asked, the way to find out if God exists is to have faith in His words and commandments, to that take a step forward into the dark; then He will enlighten your path and manifest himself to you, step by step, more and more each time. Science is see-it-to-believe-it. Faith is believe-it-to-see-it. You may choose to discard that method, but in truth they actually become a ying-yang compliment to each other. (Hence my analogy to science and art; to science and religion.) Faith requires belief, patience, and action, the fruit of which is knowledge and understanding of God’s promises. I have this knowledge for myself, along with millions of others. As Mormons, we invite all who desire such to try His promise and gain this knowledge.
God is real, art is real; yet science will never be able to prove that either one exists.
Math is not subjective. There is no disagreement about what algorithms do or their applications. It doesn’t depend on personal preference, experience, etc.
So, as to the God question, you have nothing that would be considered as proof which you would require of any other belief? A popular belief does not confer truthfulness. [And if you would be so kind as to explain yourself not in religionese I would appreciate it]
@Steve
Having “faith” in something is a very poor reason for assuming that something is true. Christians who have faith in their particular brand of this same-name religion have no consistency of belief. They cannot all be correct, can they?
Likewise, people who have faith in their subjective beliefs of being abducted by aliens are convinced that this faith justifies their beliefs. It is circular.
Non-Christian translation of Steve:
“the way to find out if a mind not confined to a brain exists is to have confidence in these specific ancient writings (alongside these specific current teachings derived from them), to consciously make an effort to trust them; then the mind will remove the effort required to maintain that trust and you’ll feel the presence of a disembodied mind (best matching the main character in those teachings), step by step, more and more each time.”
Absolutely everything that exists in the human mind or “soul” can be located in the human brain. Specific ancient writings have nothing to say about neurology.
Pingback: The “Freshman 15″ is Just a Myth « Science-Based Life
Pingback: Communicating Science: The Difference Between Science and Common Sense « Science-Based Life | Secularity (under construction)
Pingback: More Than Men – We all live in an ocean of irrational prejudice.
Thank you for sharing your idea, it helps me allot.
Pingback: Senso Comum e Ciência | Limonando
Pingback: Senso Comum e Ciência | Ajuda Jurídica