What's Your Opinion? Literal or Revisionist?

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
Dixie is a big fan of 'common sense'.

Einstein once said 'Common sense is the accumulation of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.'

To me, this means that Einstein believes common sense to be an accumulation of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.

Dixie interprets this as: "You have misconstrued it by taking what he said to the literal extreme. He is not refuting common sense, he is making a commentary on people who remain ignorant by claiming 'common sense' as their only justifying logic for belief."

and

"You believe he was telling us to never use common sense, that it was a form of prejudice. I think that is ridiculous and foolish, but if that is what you want to believe, you are completely entitled to be ridiculous and foolish. I also think Einstein makes a valid point about assumption, the kind of assumption you make regarding intelligent design. Einstein is speaking to you, as well as those who say things like... "It's just common sense that men are smarter than women!" ...."It's just common sense that whites are smarter than blacks!" He is making a poignant statement about our judgements, attitudes, and prejudices, based on our presumed "common sense" reasoning. When you boil that down, you get Einstein's statement, and I think that is what he meant."

So what's the common consensus?

By stating 'Common sense is the accumulation of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.', does he mean that common sense is the accumulation of prejudices acquired by age eighteen, or would you say that Dixie's revisionist interpretation is correct?
 
I would need more context to determine what he meant by that sentence. The assumption is always that quotes are somehow created in vacuum, as if the speaker actually meant to just say something that other people would quote ad infinitum. They almost never are.

We are not all Oscar Wilde running around saying things that we hope will be quoted into eternity.

Therefore this was a statement made in context, either in a speech or in a conversation. It can also simply be a statement attributed to him that he never stated at all. That too happens.

Anyway, basically, I need the context of the sentence in order to give it larger meaning than a simple statement from a mathemetician on what common sense might be....

If you went to boot camp and watched the math geek nukes attempt to get ready for the simplest inspection you would know that mathemeticians are not the best resource for finding out what common sense might be.
 
Ah, but Damo, in the context of having no context for the quote (no pun intended), is it right to revise the quote to make it fit how you want it to, or would you take it literally, would you take the words on face value?

Fair enough if Dixie knew the context that this statement was made in was different to its literal self, but if you do not know the context should you then interpret it in your own way, or take the words as they are?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Ah, but Damo, in the context of having no context for the quote (no pun intended), is it right to revise the quote to make it fit how you want it to, or would you take it literally, would you take the words on face value?

Fair enough if Dixie knew the context that this statement was made in was different to its literal self, but if you do not know the context should you then interpret it in your own way, or take the words as they are?
Click to expand...
I would do neither. When I have, in the past, taken a quote on face value without first finding the context, it has almost always embarrassed me.

I prefer not to use quotes where I do not know the context.
 
I would do neither. When I have, in the past, taken a quote on face value without first finding the context, it has almost always embarrassed me.

I prefer not to use quotes where I do not know the context.

What could be less ambigious than this statement?

It is self contained, a simple declaration. In what circumstances could the context alter such a self contained statement?
 
AnyOldIron said:
I would do neither. When I have, in the past, taken a quote on face value without first finding the context, it has almost always embarrassed me.

I prefer not to use quotes where I do not know the context.

What could be less ambigious than this statement?

It is self contained, a simple declaration. In what circumstances could the context alter such a self contained statement?
Click to expand...
One could say something like this...


Well, if we are speaking that way you may as well say, "<insert quote here>," which would be an oversimplification, but can explain.... (and so forth).

There are about a million different ways that one can take that into context.

Also, I still would not use Einstein's quote to put forward a slice of philosophy on human nature or what common sense really is. His expertise is not in that realm, his expertise is telling you how fast light travels and explaining why, mathematically, if you were traveling at 90% the speed of light next to a beam of light why that beam would still be traveling at 100% of the speed of light faster than you...

(Giving a hint as to actual context here... *ahem* Cough...)
 
I'm assuming this "common sense" issue has something to do with science, and Dixie's overt hostility to the tenets of evolutionary theory.

"Common sense" really has no real place in scientific inquiry. I've always found Dixie's assertion that "common sense" predicates the acceptance of Intelligent Design, to be quite lame really.
 
Prejudice really covers a lot of gound. I am prejudiced that fire will burn my finger , for example.
Dixie might think it just relates to race or something.
 
Einstein was probably referring to relativity in which high speeds can cause time to slow, objects to compress and mass to increase. These are things that defy common sense however it is because of our predjudices in our limited ability to observe the natural world that this comes about.
 
Einstein was probably referring to relativity in which high speeds can cause time to slow, objects to compress and mass to increase.

lol. If he were, why would he refer to common sense as an accumulation of prejudices acquired at age 18?

Why would he not say something along the lines of... 'Common sense in relation to relativity is nothing more than accumulation of prejudices acq...etc'?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Einstein was probably referring to relativity in which high speeds can cause time to slow, objects to compress and mass to increase.

lol. If he were, why would he refer to common sense as an accumulation of prejudices acquired at age 18?

Why would he not say something along the lines of... 'Common sense in relation to relativity is nothing more than accumulation of prejudices acq...etc'?
Click to expand...
I gave you a way earlier to find the context of the quote....

But since you don't want to. Einstein was answering the question of a reporter who stated that it was just "common sense" that what I described above couldn't happen.... He spoke of it in context of the science, explaining why what I described above does happen.
 
I've tried to find the context of this quote in the past but have failed. I didn't try very hard, I must admit, but it's not going to be something that just jumps right out of google for you.

We do know that it dates from the late 1940s or early 50s. By that time, Einstein knew perfectly well that, like Wilde, he would be quoted for posterity. I doubt he'd make such a statement expecting it to be interpreted narrowly. ;)

Still, I'm sure that he was primarily thinking of the fact that General Relativity is so very counter-intuitive for almost everyone. It just looks wrong unless you have the mathematical expertise to follow the proof.

I agree with uscitizen in that I think that the principle has a more general application. Common sense is overrated, in my view. It's not a very reliable measure if you have anything else at hand.
 
Common sense is very handy. I know some genuis level people that would have trouble changing a lightbulb. slight exageration but not much ;)
But they can explain relativity or somesuch to you .

Common sense combined with high IQ and a good education produces awesome people.
 
uscitizen said:
Common sense is very handy. I know some genuis level people that would have trouble changing a lightbulb. slight exageration but not much ;)
But they can explain relativity or somesuch to you .

Common sense combined with high IQ and a good education produces awesome people.
Click to expand...
Which was my point earlier. One shouldn't use a math genius to determine a solid understanding of common sense.

And Ornot, read my post above yours, it gives the context out.

Einstein was speaking to a reporter after giving a synopsis on the fact that if you are traveling at 90% the speed of light next to a light beam, that light beam would be traveling 100% the speed of light faster than you. The reporter stated that it flew in the face of common sense (paraphrased)... His answer was the quote.

However, common sense really is those things which the common man sees that help him to make sense of things. When his car is traveling at 90 next to a car traveling 100, it is not going 100 miles per hour faster than him....

I really would not use Einstein as the measure of the common man.
 
lol. If he were, why would he refer to common sense as an accumulation of prejudices acquired at age 18?

Why would he not say something along the lines of... 'Common sense in relation to relativity is nothing more than accumulation of prejudices acq...etc'?

Einstein often included some folksy humor into his most famous quotes.

One I like is "There are only two infinite things the universe and human stupidity and I'm not so sure about the former."

I think he also once joked that the American Tax Code was the hardest thing in the universe to understand.
 
Einstein was answering the question of a reporter who stated that it was just "common sense" that what I described above couldn't happen.... He spoke of it in context of the science, explaining why what I described above does happen.

Which is essentially what I said the context was. Einstein was not telling you to abandon common sense, you moron! As I said before, if Einstein had said... "I love daisies in the morning!" It wouldn't mean that he literally likes to eat daisies for breakfast, now you could take his statement to mean that, it's your full right to be an idiot and a moron and believe that is what he literally meant, but for me to interject that I think he was talking about the beauty of the daisies in the morning, is not revisionist, and is not changing his words.
 
Dixie said:
Einstein was answering the question of a reporter who stated that it was just "common sense" that what I described above couldn't happen.... He spoke of it in context of the science, explaining why what I described above does happen.

Which is essentially what I said the context was. Einstein was not telling you to abandon common sense, you moron! As I said before, if Einstein had said... "I love daisies in the morning!" It wouldn't mean that he literally likes to eat daisies for breakfast, now you could take his statement to mean that, it's your full right to be an idiot and a moron and believe that is what he literally meant, but for me to interject that I think he was talking about the beauty of the daisies in the morning, is not revisionist, and is not changing his words.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you have a couple posters that still talk to you. Frankly, you're getting boring. Especially after you admitted that your whole internet persona is basically an act, because you have to keep your "image" up. As for me? I prefer honest posters, not trolls. You're getting boring man.

too bad you banished yourself from fullpolitics. I suspect from now on, your down to about one or two people who read your stupid crap.
 
Especially after you admitted that your whole internet persona is basically an act, because you have to keep your "image" up. As for me? I prefer honest posters, not trolls. You're getting boring man.


Hmmmm I have suspected that for some time. The same with SR and Brent.
 
I suspect from now on, your down to about one or two people who read your stupid crap.
Click to expand...

I can't help it Damo can't keep his servers up! If two people are all that is here, it's not my problem! :p

Besides, I don't post so that I can have a lot of people listen to me and read what I have to say. If that was my intended purpose, I would call myself Beefy and find an avatar of a big fat guy! If that sort of thing was important to me, I would call myself Care4All and claim the moral high ground on your ass. I don't give a shit if NO people read what I post! I don't care if I don't win friendship here, I don't need it, don't want it, couldn't care less about it, to be honest. If I were here to make friends, I would call myself Immie and refuse to even post on this 'board of rebellion' to show SR my devotion and loyalty. And if I were a pea-brained moron who didn't have sense enough to come in out of the rain, I might try to act like I didn't read Dixies crap anymore, and call myself a waterlogged swamp tree!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top