198 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1953 



groups of people are fundamentally quite similar, there have grown 

 up widespread patterns of experiences to which the general name 

 "common sense" is given. These patterns represent the common view- 

 point upon which the majority of human beings communicate with 

 each other. The patterns of common sense differ from those of science 

 and art in being haphazard and fragmentary rather than systematic 

 and integrated, little critical effort being made to establish the validity 

 of the experiences they encompass, and no emphasis being placed on 

 unambiguity of communication. Furthermore, their growth and 

 transmission are subject to individual and local fashions and preju- 

 dices. It is obvious that common sense changes from generation to 

 generation and is strongly influenced by a group's background. 



Since the results of science and art seep into the consciousness of 

 all civilized groups, it can be expected that the progress of common 

 sense follows that of the arts and sciences with an indeterminate time 

 lag. I have emphasized the acceleration in the advances of science 

 that arises from its very nature, it being a regenerative circuit. In an 

 era when this acceleration is high, it can be supposed that common 

 sense lags far behind science unless the coupling is tight. We may 

 imagine the accelerating advance of science as a rocket towing behind 

 it, by means of a spring, a car labeled "common sense," the spring 

 representing the communication between the analyzed patterns of 

 scientific fact and the haphazard patterns of common sense. When the 

 rocket is accelerating rapidly and the spring is weak, the towed car 

 lags far behind and confusion reigns. If we are to preserve the mate- 

 rial benefits of rapidly advancing technology and avoid confusion of 

 public thought, the spring must be tightened, the communications 

 between science and the public must reflect the methods — particularly 

 the discipline of scientific thinking — as well as the results of scientific 

 research. 



I have presented this discussion on common sense because it repre- 

 sents the background against which the average man judges new 

 things. We have all been asked about a scientific theory, "What is 

 the common-sense explanation?" Furthermore, this background is 

 fairly well set early in life, and efforts to popularize science in the 

 press, in books, or on radio and television have only a superficial effect 

 upon it. From what I said earlier, it seems that after 25 years of 

 popularization of science, we still have a very unscientific common 

 sense. It is clear that this state of affairs can be remedied only by 

 enlightened effort in secondary school and undergraduate education 

 and, here again, all teachers, especially the teachers of the pure 

 sciences, have an important part to play in giving to all who pass 

 through their hands a balanced picture of the satisfying patterns of 

 facts and the disciplined methods by which human experiences are 



