It's not ALL common sense uke2se........, you simply have to use common sense to see when common sense applies.
Translation: I'll decide whether or not I know enough about any one subject.
What if an expert in the field tells you that common sense
isn't enough, and is able to show you specifically how your common sense would tell you one thing related to that field, but actual expertise and knowledge in the field tells you another thing?
Would you still argue that common sense is king, even though it's shown to mislead you? Or would you have to conceded that the expert really is an expert, and probably knows more than you about what it takes to be competent in the field?
In the case of a select priesthood of very phony modern astronauts, yes indeed, the Patrick1000 common sense rule applies...
...and spectacularly fails.
I agree: this is just special pleading. It's fascinating that you'll make so many obvious and glaring errors in that field, yet argue that your "common sense" there is not only sufficient but superior. After avoiding for weeks the question why all the experts in those fields disagree with you, the best you could come up with was that they must all somehow be deluded or incompetent. Why? Because they contradicted your claims!
Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
Those of us with common sense understand this is a common road to wealth traveled by many members of the US Congress and US Senate.
Interesting that you cite only government offenders. My common sense understanding is that insider trading is practiced among all wealthy people, not just those who get elected to office. That is to say, the enabling factor appears to be disposable wealth, not public office. Is there any particular reason you singled out public office holders for this?
I ask because you display a clear anti-government bias in nearly everything you attempt to argue. So I want to know if that's at play in this example too. The reader will be pleased to know whether you argue theories because you actually believe in them, or simply because they appeal to your bias.
Given that, I agree that it doesn't take a degree in finance to understand why insider trading is unfair. And common sense can inform you generally about publicly owned companies and the concepts of shareholding. Common sense tells you the company is doing well when its stock price rises, and poorly when it falls. Common sense tells you to buy low and sell high.
However, common sense may not be enough to tell you whether a certain questionable deal really qualifies as insider trading. While we agree that insider trading is unfair and therefore disallowed, we also agree that the stock market is most successfully played when we make use of all information legally and ethically available to us. That creates the incentive to operate as close to the line as legally allowed. Would you rely on your common sense in that case? Or would you want the advice of experienced stock traders, securities lawyers, and regulators?
See, while common sense tells you some useful things, sooner or later you get deeply enough into the details that common sense doesn't provide. Especially with case law and regulations, just using your best judgment doesn't keep you out of trouble. There are specific cases and rulings you need to know about, and if you haven't studied them then you simply won't know about them.
The judgment endemic to common sense can often allow us to infer what the facts in some case might likely be, but they do not provide those facts. The facts are what they are, regardless of our ability to infer them. There is no amount of deduction that establishes a fact as certainly as does observation. Experts are those whose knowledge of the pertinent facts is not based on deduction or inference, but on observation.
You may scrupulously avoid what you believe is insider trading, but before acting on that hot tip you'll probably want to know whether that particular case is legal or not, by consulting an expert. Because in that case an appeal to common sense will not be an acceptable defense should your actions prove illegal.
In the case of engineering, you may infer based on your general knowledge and on your common sensical judgment how some machine "must" operate. But whether it actually does operate like that is a matter of fact one way or another, regardless of what you deduced or conjectured. It actually happens rather often that someone with a good basic knowledge of physics and science will deduce how a machine must work based on idealized elementary principles, only to discover that it actually works in a much different -- and usually much simpler -- way than in he imagined. Engineers learn the tricks of the trade. Once exposed and explained, they are understood. But they simply don't arise out of common sense.
The sad thing about common sense is that it too often substitutes deduction and inference for observation. The conspiracy theorist isn't able to observe the relevant systems in operation because of his non-stature in the applicable field. So all he can do is imagine how it "must" work. And because he needs that for his theory, the inference takes on the role of fact because it
has to in order for the conspiracy theory to maintain the illusion of a sure foundation.
It is more than twice as difficult to become a member of the National US Swim Team...
I disagree. Swimming is nothing more than common sense. Those team swimmers are just playing up their own egos. They're actually not any better than anyone else.
Sound offensive?
Yeah it is. See how a claim to expertise is not
per se valid? It's not good enough to claim to be competent. Sometimes, just like in swim team tryouts, you have to
demonstrate your competence before you will be accepted as a master.
On the other hand, you are right my friend about homeopathy. Never in a million years will a homeopathic approach to any neurologic affliction grow [...] a fully evolved human brain.
Here's the funny thing about homeopathy. They all say that what they do is just common sensical and intuitive. They explicitly reject the claims of mainstream medicine to have superior effectiveness because of a strong scientific basis. They say that science is simply what those inept practitioners have to use in order to cover up for their lack of intuitive healing ability and their defiance of common sense in order to peddle their expensive placebos.
Relax, I know homeopathy is nonsense. My point is that you've conceded that not every appeal to common sense is
per se valid. And that includes appeals to common sense in order to determine whether common sense is warranted. If no appeal to common sense can be trusted, then you have to show that your common sense is sufficient in all cases to determine that common sense is sufficient.
Good luck with that.
