Many people mistakenly believe that sociology is the study of the ordinary. They claim that sociology is nothing more than the application of common sense. However, equating any science with simple common sense could not be further from the truth. Common sense is not perpetually “common” or “reasonable.” Statements such as “Blood toil, tears and sweat” and “Out of sight, out of mind,” while meant to be known to the public, contradict each other. Because common sense does not always accurately predict reality, people want something else. Not all sociological discoveries are revolutionary. Several findings actually seem to be consistent with common sense. By systematically testing common sense beliefs against facts, sociologists will be able to determine whether popular beliefs are true and which are not. To achieve this, sociologists use a range of styles and methods of social science analysis. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essaySociology aims to simplify our lives by providing an objective understanding of social development to which social problems may be accustomed. Its emergence was influenced by the methods of natural sciences, convinced that society is studied through laws. It is consistent and the results are therefore generalized to some extent, even universally. Common sense, on the other hand, relies on observation and occasional information. Therefore, the information generated is fragmented, localized and based mainly on tradition. They are therefore insensitive to any modification. This further tends to safeguard the established order, because controlling beliefs reinforce stereotypes. Common sense information also lacks reliability and validity. It is generally claimed that sociological thinking is just a change in common sense. Individuals associate it with analysis of the plain and circular reasoning which never seems to have an empirical method of validation. However, any comparison between the two will show the distinctions that can be illustrated by simple reflection on our own lives. Everything around us exists in a very meaningful dimension. The dimensions of the clothes we carry, the entire automobile we tend to drive. It is common sense that we decide what clothes suit us, whether we are size S or L, we decide to attach ourselves to a specific type of car simply because it allows us to be perceived in a very specific. These facts may seem undeniably straightforward and simple, but they have a deeper sociological price. First, the distinction between them is that common sense can rely on a body of discovered data supported by personal experiences, but sociological thinking is not. It is nevertheless understood that part of sociological thought is born from common sense and daily observation. As Berger (1963, p. 41) once stated, raising sociological questions therefore presupposes that one is curious to want to move away from the usually accepted or formally defined objectives of human actions. This presupposes a specific awareness of the fact that human events have entirely different average levels, many of which are hidden from awareness of the standard of living. Sociological thinking attempts to view society not as a group of isolated people or separate establishments. According to Brown (1979, pp. 1-2), society is an abstract construct that cannot be seenphysically. It is an abstract Internet of relationships between individuals and social establishments. While common sense is extracted and slowly constructed from sensitive information from everyday life, sociological thinking differs because it encourages thoughts and concepts that go beyond individuals' personal experiences. Second, sociological thinking allows for questioning probable common sense and prompts an additional approach. radical and agitator of social facts. According to Landis (1998, pp. 23-24), in certain aspects of human behavior, our experiences and intuition could be useful to us. However, none of us knows all things. As a result, we tend to sleep in a selected society, region, class and community at any given point in history, our experiences are essentially limited. We tend to recognize human behavior much less than we think. A peculiarity of good judgment is that it provides a principle for virtually any answer. It takes a lot of refined analytics to accurately predict human behavior and answer advanced questions about why individuals do what they do. Placing what we all know by suggests that of good judgment more in perspective. Another assertion by Brown (1979, pp. 6-7) will be incorporated to produce a clearer reading of the excellence of common sense and sociological thought. He argues that the collection of facts from collective common sense does not seem to be a major concern of sociological thought and analysis. It can only be understood absolutely with social science theories that are shaped by social science thought and imagination. Third, sociological thinking is often classified as scientific while common sense cannot. Nagel presents many contents of common sense data and beliefs as a starting point to discuss how science differs from the aggregate data provided versus what it should decide from the overall perspective of common sense expertise . For example, he begins with the later observation regarding the long and more or less reliable inheritance of common sense data (quoted in Roper, 1985, p. 24). Nagel then goes on to argue that while wisdom will attempt to provide explanations for the facts of everyday expertise, the latter are often, although not essential, tests of their connection with the facts they purport to justify. Durkheim (2004, p. 33) claimed positivist methodology in science as well as his analysis on suicide by exploring it. He thus affirms that the social sciences are often a science, in the same way as biology and psychological sciences. Sociological thinking attempts to look at and analyze the social world from an objective point of view whereas common sense can be the product of an individual's subjective experiences and therefore these cannot be considered as a science. Common sense is culturally angulated information that varies subjectively between people and societies. However, sociological thinking attempts to postulate a greater level of awareness and insight towards macro-social trends and events relevant to society as a whole. Mills (1959, p. 2) once wrote that the sociological imagination allows its owner to grasp the great prior situation in terms of its definition of the inner life and therefore the outer career of a body of people. So, with the above points, it is evident that sociological thinking is a more evolved and studied common sense to enable a broader understanding of society. Keep in mind:.