Research and Common Sense

[Iconoclast08]

A topic that came up in a recent exchange here was the questioned necessity of peer-reviewed research in light of what may be considered common sense. In other words, besides belaboring verification of results that are clear from past studies, which may be considered "common knowledge" after systematic replications (not necessarily tantamount to "common sense" per se), when is it and is it not justifiable to chalk something up to "common sense" (e.g., no research is needed, or research is a waste of time because claim X, Y, or Z is self-evident)?

While I of course agree that certain exceptionally rudimentary things are "self-evident" (e.g., humans have language, we need water to survive, etc.), which deflects from the main point, other things may strike us as "obvious" in the sense of deceptive simplicity, and they "ain't necessarily so".

An example from the psychological treatment literature is the folk myth that two treatments are always better than one, whose contemporary incarnation is that medication plus CBT will always be superior to either meds or CBT alone with any given disorder. While the "two are better than one" quip holds for many studies pertaining to clinical depression and bipolar disorder, it has been either empirically checked or shown to be too gross an oversimplification in many studies examining other disorders (despite med adherence):

See Beitman et al's (2003) Integrating Psychotherapy and Pharmacotherapy text for a nice summary of these results and relevant references:

1. Sleep impairment (Morin et al., 1999): meds + CBT combo actually detracted from efficacy of Tx.
2. Panic disorder: no consistent evidence that benzos + CBT have an additive effect.
3. Bulimia: CBT confers stronger Tx response than meds alone regardless of whether or not CBT is combined with meds (CBT alone vs. med combo doesn't matter)
4. Schizophrenia: failure to show consistent and stable stronger Tx effects with med + therapy combos (meds have a clearer beneficial impact) although psychosocial interventions and arguably cognitive remediation have their place
5. OCD: mixed results for combo Tx; exposure/response prevention seems most powerful OCD Tx available currently.

So while findings are mixed, the common sense "two better than one" is not altogether accurate for every disorder. Reality is more nuanced than our intuitions dictate.

Can you think of examples from your own lives and/or fields of inquiry where "common sense" notions turned out to be either correct or incorrect (or perhaps partially correct or incorrect)? And did those examples change how you felt about "common sense"?

[Uncayimmy]

Lots of musicians think a 200W amp is twice as loud as a 100W amp.

[Cuddles]

I work mainly with quantum physics, relativity and computers. I gave up on common sense long ago.

[Dave Rogers]

Working in waveguide optics, I've found that my common sense didn't need abandoning so much as recalibrating. As a result, some things that might have seemed counter-intuitive twenty years ago have now become intuitive. From this observation, it seems to me that common sense is no more than an expectation that events will unfold in accordance with our experience, and that these expectations can be modified by experience. Therefore, when something appears to be a common sense conclusion, it should always be examined by the question, "Have I the relevant experience in the field to make this judgement?"

The folk myth that two treatments are better than one, though, doesn't seem to me like common sense at all. To take a suitably scatological example, I would expect that taking two cures for constipation wouldn't make me twice as well as taking only one. More personally, I take medication for arrhythmia that slows my heart rate and reduces my blood pressure; again, I wouldn't want to take another drug that does the same thing for fear of over-compensation.

Dave

[blutoski]

A topic that came up in a recent exchange here was the questioned necessity of peer-reviewed research in light of what may be considered common sense. In other words, besides belaboring verification of results that are clear from past studies, which may be considered "common knowledge" after systematic replications (not necessarily tantamount to "common sense" per se), when is it and is it not justifiable to chalk something up to "common sense" (e.g., no research is needed, or research is a waste of time because claim X, Y, or Z is self-evident)?

While I of course agree that certain exceptionally rudimentary things are "self-evident" (e.g., humans have language, we need water to survive, etc.), which deflects from the main point, other things may strike us as "obvious" in the sense of deceptive simplicity, and they "ain't necessarily so".

An example from the psychological treatment literature is the folk myth that two treatments are always better than one, whose contemporary incarnation is that medication plus CBT will always be superior to either meds or CBT alone with any given disorder. While the "two are better than one" quip holds for many studies pertaining to clinical depression and bipolar disorder, it has been either empirically checked or shown to be too gross an oversimplification in many studies examining other disorders (despite med adherence):

See Beitman et al's (2003) Integrating Psychotherapy and Pharmacotherapy text for a nice summary of these results and relevant references:

1. Sleep impairment (Morin et al., 1999): meds + CBT combo actually detracted from efficacy of Tx.
2. Panic disorder: no consistent evidence that benzos + CBT have an additive effect.
3. Bulimia: CBT confers stronger Tx response than meds alone regardless of whether or not CBT is combined with meds (CBT alone vs. med combo doesn't matter)
4. Schizophrenia: failure to show consistent and stable stronger Tx effects with med + therapy combos (meds have a clearer beneficial impact) although psychosocial interventions and arguably cognitive remediation have their place
5. OCD: mixed results for combo Tx; exposure/response prevention seems most powerful OCD Tx available currently.

So while findings are mixed, the common sense "two better than one" is not altogether accurate for every disorder. Reality is more nuanced than our intuitions dictate.

Can you think of examples from your own lives and/or fields of inquiry where "common sense" notions turned out to be either correct or incorrect (or perhaps partially correct or incorrect)? And did those examples change how you felt about "common sense"?

I think in the example of adjunct therapy, it's not so much a myth as inductive reasoning from early positive findings.

I'm confused about whether you're actually asking a question in your post.

[Iconoclast08]

I think in the example of adjunct therapy, it's not so much a myth as inductive reasoning from early positive findings.

I'm confused about whether you're actually asking a question in your post.

Perhaps this is a silly and/or uninteresting question for most people here, which is fine (I really will try to come up with more engaging questions in the future). But at the time I typed this, I was genuinely curious what people's experiences were with "common sense" or self-evident notions being either confirmed or disconfirmed by subsequent research investigations/empirical tests in their own fields of interest and what their reactions were.

The CBT + meds is an example from psychology that I read into more deeply recently. In the earlier studies (see references in the text quoted earlier), the notion that both meds and CBT were better than either alone really didn't have much in the way of empirical support at the very outset but rather stemmed from a hunch about a beneficial synergistic effect that seemed like common sense to practitioners. This turned out to be really wrong with certain disorders while holding for others.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I tried to clearly articulate the question:

Can you think of examples from your own lives and/or fields of inquiry where "common sense" notions turned out to be either correct or incorrect (or perhaps partially correct or incorrect)? And did those examples change how you felt about "common sense"?

[tesscaline]

I often see the idea that "anything all natural is safe" being touted as "common sense" when it is most definitely drastically wrong. After all, sulfuric acid occurs naturally in volcanic gasses, and sulfuric acid is definitely not safe. Arsenic is natural too. And yet, there is still a growing mentality (fueled by today's marketing schemes) that anything "all natural" is not only safe, but also medically effective (http://www.weirdsciencecolumn.com/site_weirdsciencecolumn/weirdscience-natural050505.htm is a nice opinion piece on the subject) -- MORE medically effective than "artificial" or "synthesized' ingredients -- despite the fact that "natural" and "unprocessed" ingredients can vary widely in concentration (meaning that you risk overdosing by using them), are not regulated the same way pharmaceuticals are, and are not clearly identified as to possible life threatening drug interactions (or even duplications) and sensitivities.

Take the use of willow bark (in tea, or what have you) as a pain reliever. Willow bark contains the same base chemical that aspirin does. They are both NSAID's. When you go down to your natural foods outlet and buy a baggie of willow bark, no one tells you that you shouldn't take aspirin (or advil or any other NSAID) if you are using the willow bark. No one tells you that using willow bark can be an issue if you have an ulcer or if you have unregulated high blood pressure. No one says how much is too much to use. And, in addition to all of that ambiguity, there is no way to tell just how much of the active substance (salicylic acid) you're actually getting. Not to mention how horrible willow bark tea tastes! So, how exactly is all that "safe" or "more medically effective" in comparison to normal OTC buffered Bayer aspirin, which has been concentrated and purified so that each tablet has exactly the same amount of active ingredient, as well as treated to help protect one's stomach, as well as labelled with safety and dosage information? Hmm?

[SusanB-M1]

Common sense is certainly lacking at times; over the years there have been news items on large sums of money which have been spent on research into something, the answer to which we ordinary people could have told them for nothing. I was a teacher and I still shake my head in disbelief at times when I hear of 'exciting new' ideas to improve Primary Education. Well, we were doing that in the 1970s, etc etc. The research money would have been much better spent on funding extra teachers.