Science constitutes two things: 1. a particular methodology, 2. a particular type of knowledge. It is a known fact that science isn't obsolete: it is not a dogma. All scientific knowledge is prone to improvement or demolition. For example, the gravitational "what" given by Newton was further enhanced by the "how" by Einstein's non-euclidean geodesic space-time curvature. Another example of further improvements lies in the methodology of calculating the value of pi. The way of calculating pi, from creating poly-numerous Hexagons and circles, was improved by Newton's calculus. Furthermore, there are instances when science builds up from other discoveries: Newton used the Pascal triangle to create the binomial theorem- the list continues. However, we can gather two things from these examples: scientific knowledge isn't absolute and isn't staunched: it is capable of improvements and demolition too: for example, the Plotomy model of solar-system was demolished by Gallileo's model of the solar system, or, how the Bergsonion understanding of time was demolished by Einstein. 

 

No scientific knowledge should be held in reverence as they are prone to be disproved or improved. Science has a methodology that follows two logical methods: empirical and rational. I won't discuss the nature of these Logical methods; however, I will explain how a piece of scientific knowledge is founded. For further ease, we can take the example of experimental physicists and theoretical physicists- an experimental physicist uses a telescope or his sense-organs to accumulate observable facts; whereas, a theoretical physicist uses mathematics to gather scientific data. An experimental physicist uses empirical observations whereas, a theoretical physicist uses a rational method. One uses his eyes, whereas the other uses his mind (in improper colloquial terms.)

 

Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts So far." I don't believe that definitions can give a comprehensive understanding, but they are apt enough to give perspective. To understand commonsense more particularly, I will reduce commonsense into a mere perception formed after a situation, experience, or even fact. Common sense as a trap is based on the illusion of knowledge: debauchery of truth. Hence, it is filled with assumptions and social acceptance more than the truth. I often say: "commonsense is mere common-dogma; or, commonsense is a common lie." Whatever it may be, the fundamental feature of common sense is that it is merely a singular empirical claim. However, when empirical claim gains social acceptance, it becomes common sense. I don't view common sense as a bad thing: in terms of convenience, it is much simpler and efficient than scientific knowledge; However, in terms of reliability, and validity scientific knowledge far exceeds that of commonsense. But, we must also realize that all scientific exploration starts from an empirical claim; hence, common sense is also necessary for science.

 

In the web of knowledge, in the core lies logic, with scientific knowledge surrounding it. (see picture i) In the periphery, there are empirical claims. Scientific knowledge is much nearer to logic than empirical claims. Hence, science prevails because it has more reliability and validity than commonsense. This doesn't mean common sense is discardable: it only means, in a perspective hierarchy, it remains lower than science. But in the web of belief, all are equally important. Without commonsense (empirical claim)-no knowledge is possible: every knowledge starts with it. However, we must understand that even if common sense is convenient, it is not reliable: hence, a claim should merely be a claim: not a prejudiced belief; this is when common-sense becomes dangerous.

 
-Nishant Pokharel

 

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 also why science is so much better at explaining things.

 

Since, Science goes a step beyond common sense and explores why an incident occurs in that particular way and are based on fact, not opinion or preferences we can say science prevails over common sense 


Lavish Jung Gurung

 

 

A common sense knowledge is knowledge out of hear-say and usually is accepted by people without proof and debate. And because of this, common sense is sometimes contradictory.

For example, a common sense belief says, "Absence makes the heart pound."

On the other hand there is a popular belief,

"Out of sight, out of heart." 

Therefore, these popular hear-say statements themselves don't agree with each other. However, scientific knowledge carries its validity and compatibility wherever it goes.

 A common-sense becomes a justified knowledge when science comes into play. Science is what provides facts, bases, and logic to why something is to be followed, believed or concluded. You brush your teeth after meals not because you do it everyday or everyone does so, but because you need to keep them clean so that you don't get germs.

Common sense knowledge is based on hindsight bias, overconfidence and superstition which may lead us to falsehood and wrong conclusion, but scientific knowledge has its bases on curiosity, skepticism and criticism, which always questions every discourse. Therefore, next time someone says "I knew this would happen!" It might just be a coincidence and we can conclude that science does prevail over common sense!!

-Shalini Tripathi (blue zone)