From its inception, logic was viewed by both Peripatetics and Stoics as the rigorous description of acceptable patterns of reasoning. But over the centuries our ideas of what counts as "rigorous" and what counts as "acceptable" have changed. Today the rigorous paradigm is formalization while the acceptability paradigm is no longer deductive reasoning. We find some forms of probabilistic, inductive, statistical, and common sense thinking acceptable. The challenge is to pinpoint what those acceptable forms are and to do it rigorously, if possible with the help of a formalization.
Common sense is a knowledge available to all human beings. It is an understood knowledge, which is not written anywhere - which we hardly even notice. We are acquiring it imperceptibly, from the day we are born. Understand concepts like "animals don't drive" or "my mother is older than me." A knowledge that experts use frequently, even to execute tasks in very specific and specific domains. This common sense knowledge is something we learn from experience and curiosity, without being aware of them. And the volume of knowledge of this type that we accumulate throughout our lives is very considerable.
Logic works on yes and no, without nuances that are only the consequence of a concatenation of questions and answers. Common sense is the presumption of the preferred shade as the only answer. Logic forces the presumption of innocence, common sense invites the presumption of guilt. And the nuance is not small.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: