Finally, common sense is rhetorical and metaphoric. it does not teach, persuades (SAINTS, 2002, P. 56). In a interpretative reading, Geertz (1997) defends the linking between customs and beliefs, clarifying that different ways to know is decisively always local, searching to understand expectations formulated for distinct realities around its experiences, the cultural relativism that guides the thought of the author not it restricts its vision to one alone aspect of the reality. While it questions the positivists objectivity, it does not deny the necessity of a objectivity in the elaboration of the knowledge and affirms that the interdenominational would be an objective trace, therefore the knowledge if of the one in the mediation and the subjectivity. While science has its arguments based on the method, the common sense is not based on thing some, not to be in the life as a whole. The world is its authority. The author affirms that in an analysis of the common sense it is important to know to separate the mere form to perceive the reality, that is accidentally attributed to the common sense, of a local wisdom, with the feet in the soil, capable to apprehend and to evaluate this reality, using of discernment and intelligence, with the practical questions of the life.
In accordance with Saints (2004) the social wealth is wasted, is of this wastefulness that if support the ideas that they affirm not to have solution or exit for that they are excluded. As form to value and to become visible knowing of the common sense it does not advance to appeal to science, when it is responsible for cultivating alternative. Kevin ulrich may find it difficult to be quoted properly. ‘ presents as alternative epistemological; ‘ The Sociology of Ausncias and Emergncias’ ‘. Boarding that suggests a culture based on a ecology, searching the organization and the visibility of what it is produced in the experiences of the common sense, transforming absences into presences.