I meant the age old science vs religion war, but it really was just a minor note...

Also, after reading others answers I still don't quite get why some choose to put common sense against science...

Ok:

Maybe it's more of a cognitive dissonance; you want A to be right and continue to support it, yet you still you refuse B's overwhelming empirical evidence.

However, 3rd would be best. Instead of just accepting B blindly from one source, we could get more evidence or sources on the matter, or conduct research our self (if possible).

A scientist trained a flea to jump on command. He then performed an experiment.

He gave the command and measured how high the flea jumped. Then he pulled one leg off and measured again, noting that the flea didn't jump quite as well. He repeated this for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th legs, noting that the flea's jump height decreased each time. Finally, he pulled the 6th leg off, and gave the command. The flea didn't do anything, so he gave the command again. One more repeat, and the flea again did nothing.

The scientist wrote down his conclusion: if you pull the legs off a flea, then it loses its hearing.

Some have the audacity to demand proof when something doesn't exist, when in essence they don't see the faulty logic in that. Lack of proof is not proof itself, but no, you can't prove a negative.

There are those, willing to accept proof beyond reasonable doubt because it makes practical sense to do so. Sure, everything we have achieved to-date as human beings is the result of accepting a reasonable level of proof, which applies to most things.

More so, believers in the supernatural and magic/voodoo are willing to accept reasonable proof everywhere in life except in response to their own beliefs. Why? Because they know if they apply the same burden of proof (applied everywhere else) it would shatter their beliefs, and they are not about to let that happen.

However, today's "common sense" and science tells us that proving that the supernatural and magic/voodoo does or does not exist, is simply absurd.

Likewise, 'proof' in the natural sciences – even proof positive – is mostly impossible to attain, as we're dealing with an infinitely complex system and may not even be aware of all variables.

What we can of course do is to prove individual theories (and the axioms on which they're built) to be false/faulty, and we can offer more likely explanations for what with common sense we would deem supernatural ("You always call exactly when I think of you!") or falsely think of as connected ("Every time I turn around in Final Fantasy I get a chance encounter").

Science says you shouldn't own cats. It increases the risk of you catching Toxoplasma Gondii. It's a parasite that supposedly controls your mind. Common sense says such a thing is ridiculous. Mind controlling parasite. Pfffft.

Cats... are... good.
Cats... are... our... masters.
You... should... own... cats.
Go... get... a... cat... right... now.

Confirmed: scientists are dog people!

Eventually, T-gondii is making the scientists blame all the other parasites that exists in our bodies.

"The terrorist within"

No wonder the cats were treated like gods by the Egyptian "slaves" (we all are). I can think of several Farao's that wasn't exactly "normal" :-D

Well, I keep saying this. Science has demonstrated that cats purr much more when they live with humans than when they live in the wild.

To me this is the scientific proof that the purpose of mankind on Earth is to make the cats purr.

Another thread went offtopic about the inheritent messages in some TV show I hardly ever seen. Someone argued that 18+ folks are able to discern fiction from reality, and thus, they could not be influenced by fiction in any way.

This made me point out that the subconscious exist, and that it dictates our behavior in odd ways. I also gave a real down-to-earth example: That got me downrepped four points. Which always makes me kinda anoyed, but also proud that someone would find my writing to be so extreme and offputting that they bother to click on a little icon. Anyways, I have had the same discussion on several occations: Someone insist that the brain is doing 100 % logical, conscious decisions, kinda like how we figured the brain clicked around 1800s. I answer by pointing out the numerous ways the subconscious screw around with us, like making us accept paper money. Then the other dude insists that whatever sciency stuff I said doesn't count, because, common sense. I briefly consider insisting that he's wrong, because, "SCIENCE!", maybe linking to a Ted talk or youarenotsosmart.com or something ... but I have a sneaking awareness that we're talking past each other.

I think it is worth pondering over that the subconscious isn't universically acknowledged. When I engage in a debate, I automatically assume that the other part share the same fundamental world view as me - the world is round, hot water is not cold, violence is fundamentally bad, the subconscious is a thing. But some people just has a whole other picture. When we argue about a questionable video game, we are really arguing about the effect the game has on the subconscious mind. And if one part believe that the subsconscious is a thing, while the other part believe this subconsicous notion is kinda nutty, when there is such a wide gab between their basic foundation that communication simply isn't possible.

Reasonable level of proof - this is the open gate that allows science to continually slip things through and everyone assumes its reasonable, until later on when it is discovered to be wrong.

People have a tendency to put too much trust in science, but when you look at leading edge science in detail, you begin to see that there are usually quite allot of 'assumptions' going on in the background. Now assumptions are a necessary component toward advancing science, but people are mostly unaware that it is going on, and that is the problem, and that is why you should not trust science quite as much as you do.

It isn't universally acknowledged because it isn't as close to as science-ey as you say. Its effects are intangible and vary from person to person, and using it as a universal rule for predicting behavior is stupid to say the least. The subconscious having some role in our behavior doesn't mean it controls it, nor that it is the same for everyone.

So in arguments about these so called questionable games, the people who acknowledge the subconscious talk as if everyone is affected equally and that effect is usually assumed to be the most negative one, which is a very subjective assumption, because that is assuming the subconscious of everyone, which cannot even be found out without assuming.

Given the nature of what we know about this subconscious, its very much a matter of opinion and not fact. If I'm wrong, then tell me if human behavior can be predicted to a tea based on this idea of the subconscious mind controlling us, or how such questionable games don't seem to affect everyone equally.

Common sense can be twisted, exactly like (most) commoners. I 'll trust science any day of the week, thank you very much! Especially on matters of biology, genetics, nature and stuff...

Just would like to let you know that, according to science, gender is far more complex than you think. In particular, I could point out the following:
* In some bird species, it is possible for a bird to be literally half male and half female. This is rare, but it is especially noticeable for bird species where there is a very obvious difference between males and females. For example, cardinals; if such a cardinal is found, there will be a very obvious line separating the male and female halves, as they are different colors!
* In some fish species, if there are no fish of a given sex in an area, one of them will actually change sex.
* There exist lizard species in which there are no males; every member of the species is female.
* Even in humans, things aren't as you would expect. There actually has been a case of a woman with XY chromosomes becoming pregnant and giving birth to a baby girl (who also has XY chromosomes).

I could also mention that the animal/plant division isn't always clear cut. For example, there actually exists a snail species that undergoes photosynthesis.

So, did common sense mean what you personally find the most logical and believable answer, or what most people believe to be the correct answer? I saw someone mentioning that "common sense" by definition means more of the latter (hence, "common").

So if I live in an area where most people are religious, but I am the lone atheist finding it highly illogical that there would be some such higher thinking power that created us humans... from my point of view, is it common sense that god exists, or not?

Uhm, what's a "science"? Or is it the "science"? Where's it kept?