Summary:

Although science and common sense may seem closely related, they differ significantly in their approach to understanding the world. While common sense relies on personal experiences, selective reasoning, and untested beliefs, science demands systematic observation, empirical testing, control of variables, and critical evaluation. This article explores five key differences that separate scientific reasoning from everyday common sense, illustrating how science moves beyond intuition to seek objective truth.

Key Differences Between Science and Common Sense Explained:

Science and Common Sense:

Whitehead is a critic of common sense in the context of creative thinking; the only criterion of common sense is that the new concept should resemble the first. So, he rightly said that common sense misguides cognitive evolution. But the question arises: in what respects is common sense similar to science, and in what respects is it different? One school of thought considers them the same, claiming that science is actually a regular and disciplined extension of common sense. However, this view leads to a serious misunderstanding of modern science, particularly in fields like psychology and education.

Consider educators of the last century, who viewed punishment—rooted in common sense—as the primary tool of education. However, modern scientific findings contradict this approach. It has been proven that using fear of punishment to motivate students is flawed and counterproductive.

Difference Between Science and Common Sense:

There are five basic differences between science and common sense. These differences revolve around concepts such as systematic inquiry and controlled observation.

(1) The first difference is conceptual synthesis and theoretical structure. The average person also uses ideas and concepts, but their standards are not strict; they may be persuaded by any charming or unusual explanation. For example, if someone is sick, they might think it is a punishment for some sin, or blame others for an economic crisis. In contrast, scientists construct conceptual and theoretical frameworks under a systematic approach, which are primarily tested through empirical methods. Furthermore, scientists acknowledge that the concepts they use are man-made and may or may not reflect reality.

(2) Another difference is that scientists test their hypotheses and theories systematically and based on experience. An ordinary person also forms and tests theories but tends to select evidence that supports their existing hypothesis. For example, if one believes that Black people are more interested in music, they can easily find examples of Black musicians and singers. However, a social scientist views this selective thinking as a common psychological tendency and seeks facts independently of personal biases. Science emphasizes trial and error between intelligence and creativity, values and decisions, teaching methods and student achievement. Scientists rely on systematic, disciplined, and experimental approaches to understand such relationships.

 

(3) The third difference lies in the concept of control. In scientific research, control refers to managing variables that might affect the outcome. The average person generally does not consider control variables in this way; instead, they accept explanations that support their existing beliefs. For example, when someone believes that the crime rate is high in slum areas, they tend to focus only on crimes from those areas. A social scientist, on the other hand, studies the effects of multiple variables on a phenomenon. They first identify variables that could influence the issue, control them, and then analyze the variable under study. For instance, if a slum area has a high crime rate, the scientist will also examine other contributing factors and, under controlled conditions, assess the role of the slum environment itself.

(4) Another difference is that scientists continuously examine the relationships between different phenomena and evaluate them closely. The average person gives cursory attention to such relationships and often assumes causality without proper analysis. For example, consider the use of punishment and reward in education. In the 19th century, educators considered punishment more effective, but modern experts find positive reinforcement more impactful. While both may seem justified by common sense, a scientist approaches this systematically. The renowned scientist Hurlock conducted a controlled study comparing both approaches.

(5) A final difference is in how observed phenomena are explained. When scientists explain relationships between phenomena, they carefully avoid metaphysical explanations—those that cannot be tested. For example, saying that poverty and hunger are the result of divine displeasure is a metaphysical claim, and science does not accept such explanations. In other words, science focuses on phenomena that can be observed and tested by anyone.