The "Let's Make a Deal" guy?

Philosophy. "The mother of all sciences". Naturally. Of course.

Yup! That IS where the name comes from. And if you know of the show firsthand and not the...logic puzzle, I guess you'd call it...then


wow man, you old!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

I thought it's some afterlife for great comedians where they get to perform sketches every day, pine for the fjords and then are resurrected to perform the sketches again the next day.

As to the "problem"- that is a great example, not only of science trumping common sense, but also of me being an idiot :D I've read the solution(s) and the explanations and I still don't really get it. Then again I always was terrible at all sorts of puzzles that don't involve using primates as wrenches.

Hmmm, should I click on the link,


Or should I take what's behind Curtain #2?

It depends on the situation. In some cases, common sense won't work when science will and vice versa. Typically you'll need common sense in cases where emotions, morals, and/or social situations are involved.
For example, let's take the example of giving money to a homeless man. Logically (from a "scientific" point of view), you shouldn't do it since the guy might spend it on drugs or something and you'll get nothing out of it, but common sense would tell you to help out your fellow human being and spare the dude some change. Rely too much on common sense and you become ignorant. Rely too much on science and you become cold.
For the scenario described in the OP, 3 would obviously be the most preferable option, but chances are that most people won't do this since it requires a lot of work for what could be a very minor subject over many scientific papers that are hard to read, plus the fact that a lot of scholarly journals will cost you a crapton of money to even access. The choice between 1 and 2 all depends on how trustworthy the individual is or what they've read themselves. Are they learned? Do they read a lot in this subject? Do they keep up with scientific news better than you do (OP points out that it's only the best of what YOU'VE heard)? What are their sources? Did they find out themselves? Friend of a friend?
Really, it's kinda impossible to determine what to go with given such a vague scenario, unless OP is just looking for a general "Which do you think is better, science or common sense?", in which case I'd have to say both.

3. I want some kind of "common sense" confirmation how the scientific studies came into that conclusion, or is it merely one theory.

In many news articles I quite often see researcher's opinions (what is the possible cause for something) cited as facts, and sometimes the causality is not clear either (is 1 because of 2, or vice versa, or is there causality at all?). Also, nowadays ideologies are dressed in the form of science, like "gender studies".

Some examples from real life:

In another online forum, a real life doctor said that obesity causes type 2 diabetes. While I didn't have any reason to refute the claim (I have certainly heard it elsewhere too), I wanted to know from him is the causality known, ie. what exactly in obesity causes diabetes, is the mechanism known, or is it merely an observation that obese people quite often have type 2 diabetes. I also wanted to know does it mean that thin people hardly ever get type 2 diabetes, no matter how they eat (sugar etc.) and how little they work out.

As far as I can remember (it was years ago), he wasn't quite sure about the causality but mentioned of some studies that the existing body fat does somehow affect it (I don't recall the details, maybe someone here knows better).

Another one when I was at the dentist. She talked about flossing, and how utterly important it is that you do it before you brush your teeth. I tried to ask her for more details why exactly it is so important to do it before (and not after, or even during brushing as I tend to do, ie. when the toothpaste foam is still my mouth), but she just kept insisting that of course you have to do it beforehand, otherwise the gaps will not become clean. As if it is a common sense and my question is completely meaningless.

Either she didn't understand my question or didn't know the answer to my question about why, so I just left it there. I don't know if there has been some actual study about that but I wanted the details, why is it so important to floss before brushing.

To me it is not that important to necessarily understand the details, but just some kind of confirmation that the causality and mechanism is known, or is it merely an observation that A seems to occur quite often with B (or vice versa) but it is not known or proved why. If the answer is yes to the first, that is usually enough for me, even without exact details.

Science with common sense applied to it.

That is a really weird example you give. I suppose it's possible to consider common sense as a factor, but I'd say that would more inform when and how much to give, not so much whether one should give at all (this being based, rather, on personal outlook and sense of moral responsibility). Science doesn't enter into this particular question at all, unless the man lives on another planet or something, and the question is not whether to, but how to physically get the money to him.

Part of the problem here is that dt phrased the question strangely for what she seemed to be asking. I would rephrase it as: "Would you rather accept an explanation from an unknown (to you) authority figure, or trust your "gut" based on what you already know (or think you know) and believe?"

In the hypothetical case showed I´d go with number 3....

It´s just common sense.

Science says so.

4. Watch mythbusters.

As a scientist (experimental physicist) I've learned not to trust science ;) Sure, science sounds very noble like unraveling the truth but sadly it's more about reaching a consensus with other scientists. Science is based on interpretation. The very same observation can be interpreted differently. From time to time we say that something is a law of nature but we've already changed them several times so no, I will not choose science blindly. I've trusted common sense against science many times and I'm glad that I've done so.

To answer the question: neither. It really depends on the particular situation.

Why not give an actual example?
What are these A's and B's, which are mutually inconsistent?

Example A:

Last time I checked, physicists (as representatives of science) explained to me that - according to the laws of physics - bumblebees aren't able to fly.

Now - my eyes (as representatives of common sense) show me every summer that that's not true.
Obviously, bumblebees are able to fly.

In this case, I definitely trust common sense more than science.

Example B:

Common sense: I'd call a surrounding, where the water pressure is 298 bar and the temperature is 464°Celsius, a "killing zone", where no life is possible.

Now, scientists call that "killing zone" a "black smoker", and are able to show me proof that such a black smoker is actually a comfort zone where life flourishes (at least for some beings).

In this case, I (have to) trust science.

So - to answer your question: it depends on what exactly A and B are, and which has the better proof on its side.

As well as the field of science...