I'm going for Common Sense, Not that it trumps Science. It should be Common Sense that an empirical study that has been peer reviewed should give a better grounding for the reality of a situation than an assumption based on established doctrine.

I've voting for common Sense because it is becoming more uncommon and needs saving.



Physicist figured this out a while ago.
Previous models of Bumblebee flight did not account for air viscosity.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2000/03/insect-flight-obeys-aerodynamic-rules-cornell-physicist-proves

Effectively at a bee's scale the air acts more like water.

This is a hard question to answer depending on the situation we're applying it to and what information we have.

1) If you pick common sense, your own biases could be affecting your decision. The older we get, the more set in our ways we get. The older version of us might consider it common sense but younger generations may accept our view as they will have a different view of the world. There are also times when certain things don't play out the way we expected them too, even though it seemed like common sense at the time.

2) If you pick science, you have to remember that science is constantly evolving, sometimes bring up new information which reveals what we once thought was true actually isn't. Science also has the issue of confirmation bias which masquerades as science, psychology and sociology for example are rife with this (ie. video games make people violent). Just because it's based in science doesn't mean it's correct. Also remember certain scientists can devote their entire lives to certain theories. If these theories are later proven false, what do you think will happen to said scientist? Hint: politics has it's hands in science too

3) If you track down the research, and go through it, you may find the methodology is flawed. Even if you don't find anything, you have have the problems in 2) to consider.

And intestinal bacteria. Just saying.


"Remember kids, the only difference between screwing around and science is writing it down!"


That's not the best example. The actual incident was an on-the-fly calculation (pun intended) at a dinner party, which for simplicity's sake assumed a few things which weren't true, most notably that bumblebees didn't need to flap their wings. And this happened (and was promptly debunked) over 80 years ago. <span class="bold">[Link]</span>

(However, a fun fact: Professor Dumbledore [which what a bumblebee is called in the UK] was named in part because of the myth's persistence: just like his namesake, he has magical abilities and is addicted to sweets.)

Rather, for a fairer assessment compare what science has to say about realms outside of everyday experience. Travel at relativistic (near-light) speeds. Quantum computers, which by all accounts shouldn't be able to exist for more than a fraction of a second. DNA modifications (such as GMO foods) which occur at scales too small to see with the unaided eye. Neutrinos, which pass through each one of us completely unnoticed trillions of times every second.

Too often, common sense is another name for confirmation bias: if we already believe X is true, we tend to notice (and upvote) things that support X and dismiss those which don't. Or the tug of war between X and Y can lead to cognitive dissonance: that uneasy feeling you get when you don't know what to believe, so you pick one over the other just to feel better.

And then there's motivated reasoning: when we want to believe something so badly — such as vaccines causing the rise in autism, rather than a combination of genetic factors and better-trained doctors — that our beliefs themselves stand in for the evidence. This is a dangerous state of mind, since (to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson) science isn't something that you "believe"; it's objectively true regardless.

But ignoring or disputing inconvenient science carries its own set of risks: measles was effectively wiped out in the US, and now it's making a comeback. This is not a good thing; even if there were any truth to the autism-vaccine connection, it scares me how many people would rather risk having a dead child than a "defective" one.

Last but not least, on a lighter note for you and everyone else:

The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

Ponder that for a while.

2, Science, but with a caveat. I will skim a scientific article if it's linked from the mass-media article and is not paywalled. If it is paywalled, I'll accept the article as valid scientific evidence to be added to other valid scientific evidence on the matter. If a scientific article is not linked, fake news is fake.

I seriously don't understand how people get confused about this. You get one pick. The house gets what's left, so, two picks. Of course two picks are better than one.

I only trust the things I've learned from Snapple caps. Every observable phenomenon not referenced by them is to be regarded as witchcraft and purified with fire posthaste.

Besides, anything will screw you over if you trust it implicitly. Science said Pluto was a planet, then it wasn't a planet, and I recently read that some of them are now pushing for it to go back along with adding hundreds of planets (which is going to seriously screw up our mnemonic devices). Then you have common sense, which isn't common and very rarely sensible, and it's not like the universe makes a whole lot of sense to begin with. Either way, rigid thinking is a great way to become a douchebag.

There is a difference between "it is possible for a particle to be in two places at once" and "a particle is in two places at once". The second one needs you to check those places at the same time. If you were able to do that (screw relativity), you will find it's only in one of those two places.

Here's the problem: If you actually check either place, you are altering the system, and will cause the wave function to collapse. Hence, the system in which you are checking the particle's location is not the same as the system in which you are not. To put it another way, as soon as you observe the particle, it is no longer in two places at once, but it was in two places at once before you observed it.

It is similar to the whole Schrodinger's Cat situation, in which you have a cat in a box, and whether the cat is alive or dead is not determined until the box is opened.

Common sense says that observing a system will not alter it, but science says otherwise.

I think you should need to carry on the same test for first claim too. Otherwise you wouldn´t know it is possible.
If it was a hypothesis that would be another thing altogether.

Except that this supposed "scientific fact" is not true (there would've been a link here, but I was beaten to the punch =) ). But common sense told you that if you heard this a couple times from different sources, it's probably true. ;)

Fun fact: the common in common sense was never meant to have the sense "occurring regularly" or "easy to find"; rather, it means "ordinary", and "shared by all [or most]".

I'm not sure how that's "lighter" -- it's fucking terrifying how beliefs like that have made a comeback so many centuries after having been proven incorrect, thanks to the echo chamber that is the Internet.

Welcome to the world of quantum mechanics, where everything is possible until you actually check if it's possible.

By the way, macroscopic systems also have the possibility of being in two places at once. The problem is, they are so big that observing them don't change them, while microscopic systems are so small that the perturbation of observing them is important.

It's called Heisenberg Principle.

I will need to see some statistical backing for that please!

(nevermind)

Of course when in doubt you can always trust the master of Shaq-Fu.