Common sense is critical in allowing us to live our daily lives unfettered.

Common sense doesn't really have a place in discerning the truth though. Anyone who has studied physics knows reality often turns out much stranger than "common sense" would have you believe.

Which is why you should listen to conspiracy theorists and take them seriously. Until you can refute them, like the easily disproven statements by flat earthers, with data that isn't itself suspect to the conspiracy, you should never just reject something out of hand because it isn't a mainstream opinion. For example, many still reject that the USA is in a period of interregnum under military power. They think Trump represents a civilian government. This is "common sense". But there is no genuine data to back it up (just beliefs), and in fact General Walker told you on Good Morning America on Jan 18, 2021 what was happening. Common sense just led everyone to discard and reinterpret his statement.

Common sense has allowed everyone to continue living their lives for the past 6 years. It has said absolutely nothing about what is real when you dig into the fine print.

1 hour ago, uncletiger said:

Common sense is critical in allowing us to live our daily lives unfettered.

Common sense doesn't really have a place in discerning the truth though. Anyone who has studied physics knows reality often turns out much stranger than "common sense" would have you believe.

Which is why you should listen to conspiracy theorists and take them seriously. Until you can refute them, like the easily disproven statements by flat earthers, with data that isn't itself suspect to the conspiracy, you should never just reject something out of hand because it isn't a mainstream opinion. For example, many still reject that the USA is in a period of interregnum under military power. They think Trump represents a civilian government. This is "common sense". But there is no genuine data to back it up (just beliefs), and in fact General Walker told you on Good Morning America on Jan 18, 2021 what was happening. Common sense just led everyone to discard and reinterpret his statement.

Common sense has allowed everyone to continue living their lives for the past 6 years. It has said absolutely nothing about what is real when you dig into the fine print.

Advertisement

The central weakness in your argument is that you have turned “common sense” into a universal epistemological principle the exact opposite of what it is and then used its supposed failure as an argument for taking conspiracy theories seriously. That's backwards.

 

So - You have actually demonstrated the problem with your own argument.

 

“Common sense” isn't a universal method for establishing truth. It is a collection of intuitions, assumptions and practical heuristics acquired from our experience and culture. What seems like common sense to one person, society or generation can seem bizarre to another. It is therefore particularly dangerous when someone treats their intuition as though it were a universal standard of reality.

 

And nobody is suggesting that common sense should determine advanced physics. Quite the opposite. Science exists partly because human intuition is unreliable. Quantum mechanics, relativity and countless other discoveries demonstrate that reality does not have to behave the way it “obviously” ought to behave.

But then you make the rather extraordinary leap from:

“Common sense isn't a reliable way of establishing scientific truth”

to:

“Therefore you should listen to conspiracy theorists and take their claims seriously until you can disprove them.”

 

No. That's not scepticism. That's an epistemological free pass for any claim whatsoever.

Critical thinking doesn't work that way. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, the burden of evidence lies with the person making the claim. I don't have to disprove every imaginable proposition someone invents before being entitled to reject it.

 

E.G. - I could claim that your computer is secretly controlled by invisible Martian bureaucrats. You could quite reasonably ask me for evidence. I don't get to respond, “Ah, but until you can prove the Martian bureaucrats don't exist, you must take my theory seriously.”

 

That's not how rational inquiry works.

 

And your argument about conspiracy theories being impossible to refute because the evidence itself might be part of the conspiracy is particularly revealing. That is not sophisticated scepticism. It is a self-sealing belief system. If evidence supports the theory, it's evidence. If evidence contradicts it, that's evidence of the cover-up. If experts disagree, they're compromised. If nobody can find evidence, that's because the conspirators hid it.

A proposition constructed so that no possible evidence could ever count against it isn't a strong hypothesis. It is an unfalsifiable one.

 

This is where the distinction between scientific scepticism and conspiracy thinking becomes important.

 

A genuine sceptic says:

“Show me the evidence, and I'll change my mind if the evidence warrants it.”

 

The conspiracy theorist often says:

“Show me the evidence — and if I don't like it, I'll explain why the evidence can't be trusted.”

 

That's not scepticism. It's gainsaying.

 

Science doesn't claim to possess an eternal collection of unquestionable truths. Quite the opposite: scientific conclusions remain open to testing, criticism, replication and revision. That's one of the great strengths of the scientific method.

 

Conspiracy theories tend to do the opposite. The conclusion is established first, and then an increasingly elaborate framework is constructed to protect it from falsification.

And your Trump example doesn't demonstrate that “common sense” has failed. It demonstrates that you have proposed a particular political interpretation of events and are presenting it as though it were an established fact. “Trump represents a civilian government” versus “Trump represents a period of interregnum under military power” is not something that can be settled by declaring one position “common sense”. It requires evidence, definitions, legal and constitutional analysis and, ultimately, a testable argument.

You have a hypothesis. - Now prove it.

 

Finally, the phrase “common sense has allowed everyone to continue living their lives for the past six years” rather nicely illustrates the problem. Common sense may help someone cross a road, cook dinner or avoid walking into a lamp post. It isn't designed to determine whether an extraordinary claim about constitutional government, military control or hidden political structures is true.

 

That's why we have logic, evidence, methodology, and critical thinking.

And critical thinking does not reject unconventional ideas merely because they are unconventional. - It asks a much more uncomfortable question:

“What evidence would actually convince me that I'm wrong?”

If the answer is “nothing, because any contradictory evidence could itself be part of the conspiracy,” then you've stopped being a sceptic.

 

You've simply made your belief impossible to challenge.

That's not an impressive defence of a theory.

It's a description of why the theory cannot be tested.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That's not how I read it.

In any event, was it AI assisted?

So what are you implying? I see you have resorted to  a dismissive tactic designed to shift the focus from what I said to how it was produced – anyone who has a  degree in Philosophy, English Literature, History, Law, Political Science will recognise critical thinking – a lot of my stuff is stuff I did at uni….even Deep Thought needed a well-framed question to make any sense. If you can frame a proper counterargument, I’d be happy to answer it."

Edited August 20Aug 20 by kwilco

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Why try to make a false dichotomy out of it? It doesn't matter if it's desirable or not; you need to understand what it is and what you are doing when you appeal to it

You are making a false dichotomy. You’re taking taking my use of “common sense” in a specific rhetorical context and pretending I made a universal philosophical claim that common sense is either always desirable or always worthless.

Can I point out that common sense is useful as a starting heuristic, but it is not a substitute for evidence or critical thinking — which is the distinction my original post was making.

I seems quite an impressive attempt to manufacture a contradiction where none exists.

You seem to think I've said that “common sense” is either universally desirable or universally worthless. I said nothing of the sort. That's a false dichotomy.

Common sense can be useful as a rough starting point for navigating everyday life. It is not, however, a scientific method, a substitute for evidence, or an infallible guide to reality. Knowing its limitations is rather important — particularly when dealing with subjects where intuition is notoriously unreliable.

And that's exactly what I was getting at in the original post.

When I referred to people who had “replaced their common sense with YouTube clips and leaked PDFs”, I wasn't proposing common sense as a scientific methodology. I was mocking the conspiratorial version of “common sense” — the wonderfully convenient variety where whatever happens to confirm your existing prejudices is declared obvious, while anything contradicting them is dismissed as nonsense. i.e. “common sense is for when people agree with your prejudices.”

This is precisely why conspiracy theorists' version of common sense is such a poor substitute for critical thinking. If your “common sense” invariably tells you that the people you already distrust must be lying, you've discovered nothing except your own confirmation bias.

Incidentally, you've spent all this time trawling through my posts and apparently this is the contradiction you've managed to find. After more than 70 pages, you came back with one sentence from April 30th.

I'm almost flattered.

And perhaps you missed the larger point I've made repeatedly: when confronted with an elaborate conspiracy, sometimes the most useful first question isn't an 8,000-word rebuttal. It's simply:

“Why would anyone do that?”

Who benefits? How many people would have to be involved? How long could they realistically keep it secret? What evidence would actually falsify the claim?

Or, in the case of our reptilian friends:

“What exactly do the lizards gain from this?”

They may be called “common sense” but in fact, they're invitations to think about the plausibility of the claim before getting lost in 47 YouTube videos explaining the plot.

So no, I don't need to “make up my mind” about whether common sense is desirable.

I need to know when it is useful, when it isn't, and when it needs to be replaced by evidence, logic and expertise.

That's called critical thinking.

And the fact that you have apparently been hanging on my every word for 70 pages in order to find one sentence to attack suggests that, ironically, someone here is paying considerably more attention to me than I am to them.

43 minutes ago, kwilco said:

So what are you implying? I see you have resorted to  a dismissive tactic designed to shift the focus from what I said to how it was produced – anyone who has a  degree in Philosophy, English Literature, History, Law, Political Science will recognise critical thinking – a lot of my stuff is stuff I did at uni….even Deep Thought needed a well-framed question to make any sense. If you can frame a proper counterargument, I’d be happy to answer it."

Did you not understand the questions?

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

E.G. - I could claim that your computer is secretly controlled by invisible Martian bureaucrats. You could quite reasonably ask me for evidence. I don't get to respond, “Ah, but until you can prove the Martian bureaucrats don't exist, you must take my theory seriously.”

I think I can reasonably, using first principles, explain why Martian bureaucrats can't exists. However, if you can show me actual data that there is intelligent life on Mars, then yes I would take time to consider your statement more carefully. And if data continued to mount about the possible existence of Martian spies controlling our electronics, I would increase the credibility level I give to your statement. It's not an all or nothing trust factor. But nowhere in that analysis is "common sense" a valid justification for discarding your statement. The fact that Mars doesn't have an atmosphere is.

Are they still saying Paul McCartney is dead?

And that secret message of a Beatles song when played backwards?

And the earth is flat?

Last one is my favorite. The government planted explosives to bring down the twin towers.

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

When I referred to people who had “replaced their common sense with YouTube clips and leaked PDFs”, I wasn't proposing common sense as a scientific methodology. I was mocking the conspiratorial version of “common sense”

No, what you said was that 'conspiracy theorists' lack common sense and that this is why they are subjected to what you present as critical shortcomings. It was the angle you chose to support your argument.

Then when you said today that ““Common sense" is for when people agree with your prejudices. “Common sense” isn’t a method — it’s just your personal intuition dressed up as authority", you confirmed that 'conspiracy theorists' do in fact have common sense, but that it is merely a construct they use.

This is an insurmountable contradiction and nothing else.

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

And the fact that you have apparently been hanging on my every word for 70 pages in order to find one sentence to attack suggests that, ironically, someone here is paying considerably more attention to me than I am to them.

I have a very good memory and the search function allows me to find your contradictions in a few seconds. Here is another example:

On 12/31/2025 at 8:14 PM, kwilco said:

Perfect seasonal gift for a flat earther? - Occam's razor, of course! but I doubt they would know how to use it.

Here you contend that Occam's Razor, i.e. the simplest explanation, disproves the flat Earth theory.

Yet today, in the following post, you claimed that the simplest explanation actually does support the flat Earth theory, but that it is invalidated by convoluted third-party explanations:

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

Science exists precisely because common sense is unreliable: the Earth feels flat, heavy objects feel like they should fall faster, and the Sun feels like it goes around us. All wrong.

The common denominator in these glaring, insurmountable contradictions is your irrepressible desire to "win" the argument. As I am of a charitable nature, I hereby declare you the winner, kwilco.

1 hour ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

Are they still saying Paul McCartney is dead?

And that secret message of a Beatles song when played backwards?

And the earth is flat?

Last one is my favorite. The government planted explosives to bring down the twin towers.

Yes, yes, yes and yes. No. 2 is a George Harrison song.

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Yes, yes, yes and yes. No. 2 is a George Harrison song.

You could be right.

2 minutes ago, HolmesEquivelant said:

You could be right.

Billy Shears isn't Paul McCartney, it's scientifically demonstrated.

5 hours ago, uncletiger said:

I think I can reasonably, using first principles, explain why Martian bureaucrats can't exists. However, if you can show me actual data that there is intelligent life on Mars, then yes I would take time to consider your statement more carefully. And if data continued to mount about the possible existence of Martian spies controlling our electronics, I would increase the credibility level I give to your statement. It's not an all or nothing trust factor. But nowhere in that analysis is "common sense" a valid justification for discarding your statement. The fact that Mars doesn't have an atmosphere is.

Mars does have an atmosphere, albeit thin.

That's how the NASA helicopter was able to fly.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

E.G. - I could claim that your computer is secretly controlled by invisible Martian bureaucrats. You could quite reasonably ask me for evidence. I don't get to respond, “Ah, but until you can prove the Martian bureaucrats don't exist, you must take my theory seriously.”

 

That's not how rational inquiry works.

Any time the discussion turns to conspiracy theories or extraordinary claims, we can take some help from a teapot and two razors.

• Russell's teapot is an analogy by British philosopher Bertrand Russell that says the inability to disprove an object's existence in no way supports the notion it exists. Russell gave the example of a teapot in orbit around the Sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars. Because no one can prove such a teapot doesn't exist is no reason to believe it does. I can't prove an invisible Martian didn't take over your computer, but my failure to do so doesn't in any way suggest one did.

• Hitchens's Razor, named after journalist Christopher Hitchens, is probably the most useful tool for use on AN and other forums. Hitchens's Razor builds on Russell's Teapot and states that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. If you claim an invisible Martian took over your computer, I can simply reply, "That's not what happened."

• Occam's Razor goes back to medieval scholastic philosopher William of Occam who said the simplest explanation that covers all the bases is usually the best one. Occam's Razor is highly effective in busting conspiracy theories. If you claim your computer has been taken over, it's most likely your 14-year-old nephew who did it, not an invisible Martian.

• Sagan Standard, named for science guru Carl Sagan states that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you claim an invisible Martian has taken over your computer, you can't just say "I sensed its presence." You must not only prove the existence of an invisible being through infrared cameras, spectrographs, lasers, X-rays, bounce signals, etc., but also prove the being originates from Mars.

16 hours ago, uncletiger said:

I think I can reasonably, using first principles, explain why Martian bureaucrats can't exists. However, if you can show me actual data that there is intelligent life on Mars, then yes I would take time to consider your statement more carefully. And if data continued to mount about the possible existence of Martian spies controlling our electronics, I would increase the credibility level I give to your statement. It's not an all or nothing trust factor. But nowhere in that analysis is "common sense" a valid justification for discarding your statement. The fact that Mars doesn't have an atmosphere is.

This is a false example. Critical thinking does not mean treating every idea as equally plausible until disproved. It means weighing claims according to evidence and probability. "First principles" in science are established facts, not personal suspicions. Conspiracy theorists often reverse the process: they begin with a belief, then hunt for scraps of information to support it. Science asks, "What is the most likely explanation based on the evidence?" Conspiracy thinking asks, "How can I keep my theory alive despite the evidence?" Those are very different things.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

This is a false example. Critical thinking does not mean treating every idea as equally plausible until disproved. It means weighing claims according to evidence and probability. "First principles" in science are established facts, not personal suspicions. Conspiracy theorists often reverse the process: they begin with a belief, then hunt for scraps of information to support it. Science asks, "What is the most likely explanation based on the evidence?" Conspiracy thinking asks, "How can I keep my theory alive despite the evidence?" Those are very different things.

But we aren't talking about assigning probabilities to hypothesis. We are discussing the fallacy that you can use "common sense" as a metric to determine whether a hypothesis is correct. The correct tactic to use is discernment. Common sense comes loaded with personal biases and shortcuts that you must actively subvert when doing that. Those you pejoratively call "conspiracy theorists" aren't necessarily reversing the process, as you incorrectly state. Often, they have simply spent a lot more time purging themselves of common sense biases so they can discern the actual truth of the matter at hand.

1 hour ago, uncletiger said:

But we aren't talking about assigning probabilities to hypothesis. We are discussing the fallacy that you can use "common sense" as a metric to determine whether a hypothesis is correct. The correct tactic to use is discernment. Common sense comes loaded with personal biases and shortcuts that you must actively subvert when doing that. Those you pejoratively call "conspiracy theorists" aren't necessarily reversing the process, as you incorrectly state. Often, they have simply spent a lot more time purging themselves of common sense biases so they can discern the actual truth of the matter at hand.

You've actually moved much closer to my point than you seem to realise. You've replaced one vague word with another. I agree that "common sense" is not a scientific test and that biases need to be controlled. But claiming that conspiracy theorists have "purged themselves" of those biases is simply an assertion of intellectual superiority, not evidence of it. What is your test for "discernment"? What evidence would make you change your mind? If mainstream evidence is dismissed as corrupt, contrary evidence becomes part of the conspiracy, and alternative evidence is automatically privileged, then the theory has become unfalsifiable. That's not critical thinking. It's a belief system with its own escape hatch. Critical thinkers don't demonstrate their independence from bias by claiming to have escaped it; they demonstrate it by applying the same evidential standards to conclusions they desperately want to be true as to those they don't... and don't forget the topic we are talking about is "Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them"

Edited August 21Aug 21 by kwilco

16 minutes ago, kwilco said:

We are talking about is "Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them"

More people are awake to the truth than ever before. And once they are awake they will not go back to sleep.

Humans! Get off yer knees.

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

More people are awake to the truth than ever before. And once they are awake they will not go back to sleep.

Humans! Get off yer knees.

And we will see how far this new era of “truth” brings us. Once humans built pyramids, and look at us today

Concrete examples with irrefutable evidence where conspiracy theories proved right:

NSA Mass Surveillance: Before 2013, claims that the U.S. government was secretly recording everyone’s phone calls and internet activity were labeled paranoid. Edward Snowden's leak of classified documents definitively proved that the National Security Agency (NSA) was running an illegal, global warrantless spying program.

Operation Northwoods: Suspicions that the U.S. military would stage fake attacks to justify a war were proven correct when documents from 1962 were made public. The Joint Chiefs of Staff had proposed a plan to stage fake acts of terrorism—including hijacking airplanes and bombing U.S. cities—to blame on Cuba. It was ultimately rejected by the Kennedy administration.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Whispers of a government medical cover-up targeting African Americans were validated in 1972. The U.S. Public Health Service had secretly monitored 399 Black men with syphilis for 40 years, intentionally withholding penicillin treatment to study the deadly progression of the disease.

The Nayirah Testimony: Prior to the Gulf War, public opinion was heavily swayed by a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah, who tearfully testified to the U.S. Congress that Iraqi soldiers were removing babies from hospital incubators. Critics who called it wartime propaganda were vindicated when it was revealed her testimony was completely fabricated by a major U.S. public relations firm hired by a citizens group funded by the Kuwaiti government.

On 8/21/2026 at 12:36 AM, HolmesEquivelant said:

Are they still saying Paul McCartney is dead?

And that secret message of a Beatles song when played backwards?

The likely scenario there is that the Beatles handlers deliberately put in secret messages in their songs and album covers because they wanted to perpetuate the conspiracy that Paul was dead.

12 hours ago, Hummin said:

And we will see how far this new era of “truth” brings us. Once humans built pyramids, and look at us today

Just so much of what we are told is true just aint.

The worst of the lot for me was the covid hoax. Closely followed by the 7/7 London bombings. An inside job if ever there was one. Then the 1969 moon nonsense. Then 9/11. Dear me.

USS Liberty anyone? IMO, an attempt to start WW3. Johnson; the worst president I can remember. Perhaps the worst of the worst.

Edited August 22Aug 22 by Stiddle Mump

13 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Just so much of what we are told is true just aint.

The worst of the lot for me was the covid hoax. Closely followed by the 7/7 London bombings. An inside job if ever there was one. Then the 1969 moon nonsense. Then 9/11. Dear me.

Get a grip fella

There will be people on this forum who lost family people to Covid, lost people in the London Bombings and 9/11 in the USA

Have some respect

Next you'll be saying Apollo 13 didn't happen either

10 minutes ago, Chivas said:

Get a grip fella

There will be people on this forum who lost family people to Covid, lost people in the London Bombings and 9/11 in the USA

Have some respect

Next you'll be saying Apollo 13 didn't happen either

He just said so, the moon hoax thing nonsense

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

He just said so, the moon hoax thing nonsense

Apollo 13 wasnt the "moon landing hoax" (whatever that means) quite the opposite. Best you google it

Try and keep up

7 minutes ago, Chivas said:

Apollo 13 wasnt the "moon landing hoax" (whatever that means) quite the opposite. Best you google it

Try and keep up

We just crossed wires. There is no disagreement between you and me.

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

We just crossed wires. There is no disagreement between you and me.

No I didn't cross any wires.....

You jumped in trying to have a pop

Out....

3 minutes ago, Chivas said:

No I didn't cross any wires.....

You jumped in trying to have a pop

Out....

I think he was just confusing 11 & 13

10 minutes ago, Chivas said:

No I didn't cross any wires.....

You jumped in trying to have a pop

Out....

My assumption was simple. If someone dismisses the Moon landings as a hoax, I take that as dismissing the Apollo program as a hoax. That was my intention.

24 minutes ago, Hummin said:

My assumption was simple. If someone dismisses the Moon landings as a hoax, I take that as dismissing the Apollo program as a hoax. That was my intention.

And don't forget about "The Face on Mars".

They are definitely hiding something from us there.

4 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

And don't forget about "The Face on Mars".

They are definitely hiding something from us there.

Sure, always they who hide something from us, the truth is, mars lost its athmosphere due to nuclear war, and the elite escaped to earth, but unfortunately we are living in a simulation, and each and one of us experience different reality than the next, so 🫪

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

but unfortunately we are living in a simulation, and each and one of us experience different reality than the next, so 🫪

Exactly.

And this forum is a simulation within a simulation.