Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scientists would dearly love to figure out how to create a "black hole", and would certainly do it if they could.
Common sense would strongly urge against doing so ... as "whimsical" as that may seem to you ... the localized creation of a black hole could destroy the solar system, which I find slightly more significant than you apparently do.
Common sense is clearly not so common. Forget about it being used as a tool to counter "science". What if a person with such "common sense" learned from science that black holes are all over, around us? Would it go in denial mode, or counter science with "facts", the platform upon which science must operate.
Speaking of which, what proportion of logic versus emotions do you think makes up:
1- Science
2- Common Sense
And what does common sense say about black holes and whether they exist or not?
"Black Hole" - psttt. Black holes are just figments of so called "experts" imaginations. I don't believe in black holes, they just don't make common sense.
The existence of black holes are more believable than teenagers being the source of common sense, because we have immeasurable evidence that the latter isn't remotely true.
The existence of black holes are more believable than teenagers being the source of common sense, because we have immeasurable evidence that the latter isn't remotely true.
So called evidence from so called experts. I agree with the premise of this thread: evidence and the knowledge of experts is BS whereas common sense elucidates the truth.
Nowhere in my common sense do I find reason to believe in massive regions of space so dense that they become a gravity well into which all nearby matter and even light is sucked in never to escape. To apply the questioning presented by the OP - it's stupid, it doesn't make sense, it's unreasonable, and it creates an opportunity for profiteering (all those government grants to study "black holes"). As always, common sense wins out, so black holes are made up nonsense.
The existence of black holes are more believable than teenagers being the source of common sense, because we have immeasurable evidence that the latter isn't remotely true.
I would wager on many teenagers exhibiting common sense whereas many old geezers lacking the same. So, let us not work on assumptions. But then, the very premise of "common sense" is way too subjective. Unlike science, which is all about facts, even if the fact finding begins using something that may have been merely speculation.
What makes someone an expert? (see, no cut paste of a very simple question previously posted... for the last time).
'bout time.
Your very simple question was poorly phrased and quite nonsensical; as if translated directly from a language other than English, hence the request for clarification.
As we both know, the definition of expert is largely subjective. My definition is someone capable of coming to conclusions that actually stand up to testing by scientific method rather than popular opinion. In other words, an expert is a person who states falsifiable instead of false data.
I would wager on many teenagers exhibiting common sense whereas many old geezers lacking the same. So, let us not work on assumptions. But then, the very premise of "common sense" is way too subjective. Unlike science, which is all about facts, even if the fact finding begins using something that may have been merely speculation.
Poker, tonight ... you're invited ... bring lots of money.
'bout time.
Your very simple question was poorly phrased and quite nonsensical; as if translated directly from a language other than English, hence the request for clarification.
I'm sure. 'bout time we got someone to educate others on their grasp of the language. Thank you for trying something completely unnecessary. But, if that floats your boat, and gets you to respond, the pleasure is all mine. So, let us see...
Quote:
As we both know, the definition of expert is largely subjective. My definition is someone capable of coming to conclusions that actually stand up to testing by scientific method rather than popular opinion. In other words, a person who states falsifiable instead of false data.
In my language, a person stating something does not make for a scientist. It hardly makes for an expert. It makes for a... spokesperson. There, I had to try and inform you that you did an awesome job at teaching English. Did I get it right?
In all seriousness though, your largely subjective idea of expert is a problem. As you said, someone stating facts can be deemed an expert. In my language (translated to English, of course), an expert on the subject is objectively defined as a scientist, who is involved in research.
So called evidence from so called experts. I agree with the premise of this thread: evidence and the knowledge of experts is BS whereas common sense elucidates the truth.
Nowhere in my common sense do I find reason to believe in massive regions of space so dense that they become a gravity well into which all nearby matter and even light is sucked in never to escape. To apply the questioning presented by the OP - it's stupid, it doesn't make sense, it's unreasonable, and it creates an opportunity for profiteering (all those government grants to study "black holes"). As always, common sense wins out, so black holes are made up nonsense.
That's because you don't have any, common or otherwise.
Common sense is what you think you know about a situation based on immediate knowledge of the situation at hand.
Common sense has it useful points as it tells you the sun is going to come up tomorrow (I hope), when the stove glows red it is hot, and a falling bowling ball is not something your foot wants to be under. The problem is that "common sense" brought a lot of things that really were not researched very well, like the sun revolving around the Earth, Mercury being a great curative agent, opium was fine to give children because it soothed their crying, and rubbing a potato on warts and burying it cures them.
Common sense is not a substitute for education, knowledge, rationality, statistics or experience. You don't want some one going into an OR doing brain surgery because they have good common sense, you want the person who has done med school and residency. Common sense tells you the heavier object falls faster then the lighter one, when it's easily provable to be based on air resistance.
Common knowledge and simple answers are only good for those who don't want to spend the energy to understand things that don't come right away. Real life is not something simple you can put on a bumpersticker, which is why science exists in the first place and has bought us stupendous wonders in the last century.
Without complex science (and using common sense instead) you wouldn't be able to sit here posting with a computer on the internet about why science is so bad. If you would rather have common sense then science at all you can certainly return this infernal science machine to the store instead of using it anymore.
Experts are just that, they are the people trained and experienced in the subject that are acknowledged by an independent body along with peers...and not just some one wandering by on the street who may not have even heard of the subject before. It's well know that people who can't challenge the people who know the subject, have no proof of their ideas, and no knowledge or experience in the subject....but feel they are better then those who do are cranks. This concept is very detailed in this article.
What he said!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader
"Common sense" is simply a quick reasoned opinion based on good information on a subject.
It is perfectly possible for common sense to be wrong. Especially if your basic information is lacking or wrong. On complex subjects, you either spend a lot of time learning about it, or you get the opinion of someone who has. An expert. And since there are a lot of complex subjects out there, no-one can master all of them. The commonsense term for someone who will neither learn about stuff important to his life, nor listen to someone who has is "idiot".
If you've never played chess before, common sense won't take you far against an expert, and real life is a lot more difficult than chess.
At its best, yes. At its worst, it can kill you, as in "common sense says you shouldn't wear a seat belt b/c you might be in an accident where the car catches on fire and you can't get out if you're belted". Believe it or not, before mandatory seat belt laws, there were a lot of people who held such beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I would wager on many teenagers exhibiting common sense whereas many old geezers lacking the same. So, let us not work on assumptions. But then, the very premise of "common sense" is way too subjective. Unlike science, which is all about facts, even if the fact finding begins using something that may have been merely speculation.
I usually like your posts Einstein, but I'd say you haven't raised teens if you think that. Part of "common sense", the real kind that is, comes from being around a while. So while on an individual basis you're probably right, in the aggregate, I don't think so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, if that floats your boat, and gets you to respond, the pleasure is all mine. 
So, let us see...
