Perhaps the biggest problem with “common sense” is that it is not as common as we would like. What human foibles can cause people to accept ideas related to ancient Middle Eastern chronology that are contrary to common sense?
The world would be boring if everyone had the same natural talents and acquired abilities. Some people have outstanding capabilities such as a photographic memory, perfect pitch, or high intelligence. Nevertheless, the combination of these abilities rarely occurs in the same person. An extreme example of how a person could have one exceptional talent but have other poor competencies is “Savant syndrome.”
Similarly, brilliant people with advanced university degrees vary considerably from one another in their ability to exercise common sense in topics of ancient chronology. In other words, just because a person has a “PhD” after his name does not mean that his written works and lectures about ancient Middle Eastern chronology reflect common sense. This point is not to disparage anyone because people with advanced degrees who are only average in common sense have other obvious talents.
Researchers can improve their approach to ancient chronology by emulating the “scientific method,” which involves
- Making an observation and asking a question,
- Researching the topic and forming a hypothesis,
- Making a prediction based on the hypothesis,
- Testing the prediction experimentally,
- Analyzing the resulting data,
- Determining if the prediction was true or false, and
- If the prediction is false or only partially true, reformulate the hypothesis and repeat these steps.
Ancient Middle Eastern chronology is not science (though it involves scientific data). Nevertheless, a researcher can use similar steps to formulate and test a chronological hypothesis. However, imagine if a scientist followed the scientific method and an experiment seemingly proved his hypothesis was false. Since he felt sure it was true, he checked his methodology and reran the experiment. Still, he got the same negative results. He should then reject the hypothesis and formulate a new one. He would display confirmation bias if he insisted his idea was accurate despite the negative test results.
Confirmation bias is one of the most significant problems of conventionally thinking researchers. They typically believe that data or interpretations that support traditional ideas are valid, whereas anything that contradicts them is false.
Effectively exercising common sense requires a different type of intelligence: questioning fundamental premises and considering alternative explanations. This common-sense approach requires both critical thinking and lateral thinking. Perhaps only about one percent of people have high levels of these types of intelligence. Fortunately, just as people with only average foreign language aptitude can learn new languages through determination and practice, people can improve their critical and lateral thinking techniques.
The first step of critical thinking is to “Question everything.” No one has ever established that fundamental premises are unquestionably correct in some chronological topics. People believe them because some evidence initially supported them; subsequently, the related interpretations became traditional. Many years later, researchers who have accepted those conventions might not have seriously considered new evidence and alternative interpretations. Due to confirmation bias, traditionalists often reject one piece of contrary evidence after another. Contradictory data should be glaring red flags, especially if they repeatedly appear. Nevertheless, the attitude of conventional thinkers is frequently, ‘That cannot be right because it contradicts what I know is true.’ If these scholars derive alternate hypotheses, they typically represent only minor divergences from traditions.
People can improve their lateral thinking by daring to pose questions such as: “Is it possible that this conventional premise or idea is wrong and such-and-such is true instead?” Then, they can perform “experiments” to see if the historical and related scientific data support the alternative hypothesis. If this practice becomes a habit, they are more likely to make significant discoveries.
Over the next twelve weeks or so, this website will feature a series of posts regarding common sense and various chronological topics. They will demonstrate how critical and lateral thinking can resolve mistakes in conventional viewpoints.
One comment