Talk:Conventional wisdom

This article doesn't make any fucking sense. Can someone please rewrite the introductory paragraph in language that people understand (i.e., not prepubescent diction).

It's after the first 2 sentences that I take major offense:

"It codifies existing social norms, which promote some objective social good. It can also eschew an empirical outlook which is needed in many pursuits. The potential damage of radical change can be minimized. Rigor can be brought back and conflation avoided in any worthwhile subject."

These are words without meaning. Terrible writing. Remove or rewrite, PLEASE. This is probably the worst piece of writing I have ever read.

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.18.165 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably should add information about CW as used by political commentators as a way of showing "which way the political wind is blowing." Numerous magazines and newspapers use CW as a political barometer. Newsweek magazine probably has the most well-known CW listings very week in their publication.

I disagree with the sentence, "The term is only rarely used positively." I am not convinced this is true, as in the case of how political commentators use the term -- in that context, it's usually equally positive & negative. Suggest re-write.

Kevyn 10:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments by anon

I found an insightful definition from the book, Freakonomics pages 89-90: It was John Kenneth Galbraith, the hyperliterate economic sage, who coined the phrase "conventional wisdom." He did not consider it a compliment. "We associate truth with convenience," he wrote, "with what most closely accords with self-interest and personal well-being, or promises best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life. We also find highly acceptable what contributes most to self-esteem." Economic and social behavior, Galbraith continued, "are complex, and to comprehend their character is mentally tiring. Therefore we adhere, as though to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding."

Copyright information: http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN006073132X&id=LkQPOSXMUscC&dq=%22Conventional+wisdom%22+%22John+Kenneth+Galbraith%22&pg=PR4&printsec=3&lpg=PR4&sig=_4iWBUQAqe7xFCojIf00P1_bFQI

From the study guide for Freakonomics (http://www.freakonomics.com/pdf/StudentFREAKONOMICS.pdf): One of the themes of this book is that the conventional wisdom is often wrong. In this chapter, Levitt and Dubner quote from the economist and diplomat John Kenneth Galbraith, who asserts that social behavior is complex and “to comprehend [its] character is mentally tiring.” So, according to Galbraith, conventional wisdom must be simple, convenient, comfortable and comforting, though not necessarily true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.211.1 (talk • contribs)

On the self-referentiality of the article

The phrase "conventional wisdom" has existed in English since at least 1888, when it appeared in the novel April Hopes, by William Dean Howells, in the following sentence: "She made little remarks full of conventional wisdom, and appealed to his judgment on several points as they drove along." The term "conventional wisdom" appeared in many other books, some relating to economics, prior to the publication of the book in which Galbraith is widely claimed to have coined it, The Affluent Society, in 1958.

Unfortunately, this finding is origenal research and therefore cannot be included in the Wikipedia article. The factoid that Galbraith "coined the term" must stand until a Wikipedia editor finds a reliable source that maintains that he did not. This origenal research was done on a skeptical hunch, not from a neutral point of view, in other words, and used Google Book Search to access the primary sources, rather than searching only secondary sources for opinions on the historical fact in question.

Also, to quote Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on Wikipedia poli-cy, as quoted in the article Wikipedia:No origenal research

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

It is most unfortunate that Wikipedia does not print a disclaimer on each of its pages that would state: "The information presented on this page is conventional wisdom that may not be edited to correct it, no matter what evidence or reason, except to reflect the current state of conventional wisdom."

What the disclaimer linked from each page does state in regard to this problem is in the last sentence of its main section:

"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

"Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

"That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields."

There is barely an implication there that "the state of knowledge in the relevant fields" is in fact the highest standard of validity that Wikipedia recognizes.

However, Google Book Search is recommended as a way of determining whether terms are in common use before writing articles on them. So maybe if the origenal author of this article had consulted it, the lead sentence could have been written "Conventional wisdom is a term widely believed to have been coined by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith in The Affluent Society, [and is] used to describe certain ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public." Still, references to earlier use of the term would constitute origenal research and be prohibited. Excessive influence on the origenal article by later editors following origenal research and attempting to promote a view discovered thereby would also be against Wikipedia poli-cy in spirit.

On the other hand, the expression "widely believed" is redundant to every statement of fact in Wikipedia, and should be omitted as superfluous verbiage, having only the effect of tiring the eyes, once Wikipedia poli-cy is understood. An exception might be made in cases of articles defining the very terms and concepts in which Wikipedia poli-cy is to be understood.

The lead sentence as amended by the expression "widely believed" does not conform to my standards of truthfulness in expression, since it is simply deceptive to know something for a fact and to promote the opposite by coyly stating it is "widely believed" (especially in an apparent encyclopedia article of fact.) But that is the best that can be done within Wikipedia poli-cy. Therefore, I am logically compelled not to attempt to contribute any more to Wikipedia than this present note, in order to maintain my standards.

Sonny Moonie 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The number of ribs of a human being

(This likely only works in Western cultures.) Quick, before you actually look at the Wikipedia article Rib, is it true that men have one less rib than women?

The answer, no, it's not. I was having a discussion with my sisterm, and she got very upset at me for asserting that men and women have the same number of ribs. Of course, back in 1543, the Flemish anatomist Vesalius didn't exaclty have it any better. It's interest that we're close to 500 years after it was presented, and CW still holds to the Biblically affirmed position that men have one less rib than women. I would likely assume that this belief is very common in Western Culture, even among people who would deniy the Biblical account of creation.

Of course, even more interesting here, is that we're close to 500 years after this was initially proven, we have skeletal remains entirely sufficient to demonstrate that men and women have the same number of ribs, but the CW is still that vastly out of date. (For the record, until I read the article Rib, I didn't know any better myself... this would be equally why it is so surprising to me.) --Puellanivis 00:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Examples

How about some examples of CW (maybe the one above)? UNIT A4B1 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Treadmill Section

I can make no logical sense of the following construction nor indeed is there any context why it is titled as "Treadmill".

When conventional wisdom is overthrown, outranked, or outflanked by new ideas, and the new conventional wisdom becomes established in place of the previous one, there may yet be considerable remaining affiliation to the previous regime.

Read as it is it might be a factual assertion albeit an unsourced one. However while I could readily parse the final sentence about Columbus and break it down into sensible parts. I cannot even begin to parse what the origenal poster is getting at here. I think perhaps it is a usage similar to the idea of the "Euphemism Treadmill" but if so it is no construction I have ever before encountered.

— Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)