deleted

Isn't 'common sense' subjective though ? I'm sure Hitler, Osama and Jeffrey Dahmer saw their actions as 'common sense'.
So common sense can be completely different for different people, it depends on what their state of mind is, since it's based on whatever delusion and knowledge they have managed to collect over the years.

'Science' on the other hand should not be subjective, one cannot pick whether gravity exists or not (on Earth).

It also depends on what you mean by science vs common sense.

Take a tow-truck driver for example, trying to pull a car from a ditch with his wire. His experience and training has given him the knowledge, and thus 'common sense', as to how to connect the wire so that the car is pulled from the ditch as efficiently and with as little damage to the car as possible. Knowledge of science would result in the same outcome.
Yet the knowledge that he draws from is based on scientific and technological findings.

Which one would I trust, given your scenario ?
It would depend on how serious the consequences are, if they are big as in 'sure, this plane I built in my sparetime can fly' then I would rather trust a scientist's opinion. If it's something less important, as in my dad telling me to try X to get my car to start, then I'd trust his opinion.

I've been blinded by science before, so...

Just kidding. I suppose I would say I'm a thinker, so I would generally go with science, but I would seek out as much information as possible before actually coming to any conclusions. I've learned that this tends to drive people batty. Like, I don't mind being wrong about something, but don't just use platitudes and guilt about it, back it up.

Also depends on topic. I'm not very social, and a discussion about that would lean more heavily on feelings than science. Good heavens, tinyE, you're beautiful!

This by itself is a huge part of the problem. People use the word "science" to mean all sorts of things, but startlingly few people seem to consider that science is, among other things, a process, a never-ending quest for more complete, and more precise, knowledge. It is not (and never will be) an endpoint, a static pool of absolute truth. Nor is it a single, monolithic authority, speaking with one voice on all topics ("Science tells us that [...]").

Are you sure about that?

Oingo Boingo - Weird Science

You have to be really liberal to come off like that ;-) I hereby reject your dark reality and substitute my own.

Common sense < Skepticism & Logic > Science

"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Richard P. Feynman, theoretical physicist.

He also pointed out that you are easiest person to fool, ergo the ego.

Problem is that with common sense you can easily fool yourself, and science can be politically manipulatet.

shit
Algebra!

I never was good at this! Curse you sanscript! :P

I can recommend Walter Lippman "Public Opinion" about what you/we "really" know is true.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6456

I dub thee, Excalibrate.

Whichever pays me more to be sustained. Amorality ftw! /s

3, 2, 1.
[medical science guy]

edit: most of the time, common sense stands with science, not against it. The argument should be for religion, or fanatical belief vs science.

This is very true, and is something that is overlooked quite frequently. Science is about forming hypotheses and testing them. Often this requires others being able to independently verify test results, which becomes difficult with complex systems.

Interestingly, I've frequently seen those that claim to be on the side of "science" with fanatical beliefs (scientism). Religion and "science" do not have to stand at odds. Historically, many scientific discoveries were made by priests or monks.

My gut, which takes input from both Common Sense and Science.

I realise now how vague(or cryptic) my statement was. This isn't the time nor place for heavy, detailed discussion on such a thing :)

The Monty Hall problem is a perfect example where common sense would totally be trumped by "Science".