Commonsense Beats Science Every time

Commonsense tells me that the Earth is flat. Science tells me that it is not.

Commonsense tells me that the Earth is the center of the sky/Universe. Science tells me that it is not.

Looks like I've chosen a title to beat or contradict myself. Not so fast.

Within seconds, commonsense whispers to me that in such matters I should not trust it but find another perspective.

Commonsense works like a grand master of Judo, Akido or Taichi, yielding so sensitively that it avoids any injury.

Commonsense knows and readily admits its limits. Ask it : How far is it from here to the Sun? It will meekly replies: I don't know. Ask it : How thick is a water molecule? The same answer we get.

Science when really good, also works that way: It knows its limits. It is honest. It is always ready to defer to truth.

Here is a simpler calculation for commonsense:

In commonsense areas, commonsense wins.
In science, commonsense draws with science because it defers to science.

But what about science?

In commonsense areas, science suffers because it is overstepping.
In science, science draws with commonsense as explained before.

How come science has come to mean "arrogance," "rigidity," "hype" and "insincerity"?

At EssayKKN, we help you appreciate humble commonsense and authentic, honest science.

Modern communists and a perspective

Modern communists sounded super-foolish this way.

At some times in South-East Asia, communism was a bit fashionable.

Communism in Myanmar context meant "dumb," "misguided," "impatient," "impractical," and "cruel."

But then Myanmar was a "socialist" "one-party" country too and the national doctrine was that without its extremes and cruelty, communism can become "socialism" and that that brand of "socialism" was a cure-for-all! (Drum roll, or trumpets depending on the type of theatre you are in.)

Then Burmese author, U Aung Thin questioned in one of his literary criticism books: Lenin may have been concerned more with raising the poor than with bringing down the rich. So, Myanmar Commies, are you driven just to destroy the rich and the educated? What else do you have to say and do for raising the poor and the disadvantaged?

Mao and a perspective

In those days in South-East Asia, being a communist was a bit fashionable.

When you said you were a commie in those times, people may think you were misguided but they still allowed that you were idealist and you sought justice and the general good.

At that time, Mr Mao was rather eager to export his revolutions to near-by countries, including ours. 

Then Burmese author, U Thein Pe Myint wrote in the papers how hostile Mao was to Myanmar. It shook us. We simply could not understand why he would harbour such hostility to a country like ours --- peaceful, cowardly and rather in self-isolation.

If you cannot be nice to a docile, cowardly, subservient country, you must be truly out of control. Nero style.

Freud and a perspective

Freud sounded super-foolish this way.

He hypothesized that couples in the Victorian age had psychological troubles because their puritanical upbringing made them despise or fear sex.

Then Burmese author, Pi Moe Nin argued that if it was so, those Victorian parents must have been more persuasive and convincing than Lord Buddha Himself. Buddha taught and implored people to abstain from even sexual thoughts, and failed miserably. But these parents had succeeded in just one generation!


Maybe Sir Freud forgot logic and clear think during the hypothesis-formulation stage of his research.

Refusing to learn

Refusing to learn is a very clear sign of a good learner.

This is also a form of air tunnelling.

Why? If there is a better workaround, a better substitute, why should we learn the sub-optimal techniques and methods.

Isn't it how humanity made its progress?

If knowledge has truly become a commodity, if information has truly become a commodity, if skills has truly become a commodity, .. what else remains for us to master and to exploit?

Matsushita's Secret of Success in Business and Management

My reference is "Not for Bread Alone" column in "Japan Close-up" magazine, June 2010.

A young news reporter: "What, in your opinion, is the secret of such successful growth [of his company] ?"

Konosuke Matsushita: "What would you do if you were caught in a rainstorm?"

The young news reporter: "I would take out an umbrella, of course."

Konosuke Matsushita: "Right. When it rains, you put up an umbrella. That is the secret of success in business and management."


Matsushita went on to explain his idea using words like "commonsense," "simple," "natural," "unforced," and "ordinary". He insists that we all can achieve success by taking actions that are "natural" and "simple" to us.

How Messed Up We've Become

Here, the trouble begins. We've become so messed up that we don't understand most of his terms or have to debate about their real meanings, except "unforced," and "ordinary".

We've become really messed up: what is "common sense" for some isn't no "common sense" at all to us. e.g. Some presidents think it is common sense to ignore hurricanes and oil spills for the first few weeks. Maybe it is, may be not.

What is "simple" for some is not so simple for us. e.g. Java programmers think it is simple for non-programmers to download a few jar files (don't ask me what a jar is!), to untar them (again don't ask me what "tar," "untar" means), to place them on a proper classpath (again, don't ask me what a "classpath" is) and to configure and integrate them properly.

What is "natural" for others is not natural at all for us. e.g. Java programmers think it is natural for people to take hours to set up an insignificant, inconsequential application whereas lawyers, teachers, doctors, shopkeepers, bankers find that unnatural.

I am trying my best to be "simple," "natural," "commonsensical," and "ordinary" again.