I Agree with you. So you know I am very prone to play devils advocate. Though I do not enjoy being attacked for it.

Blocking "common sense" is one thing but blocking logic is not good.

I think we have different definitions of logic.  As it would be impossible to complete an expierment or properly deduce the root of problems without logic

The problem is people call things logic that aren't really logical and instread make assumptions about things without their judgements being evident.

The problem is too many peole use inductive reasoning on situations that are far to vast and complex in which to use inductive reasoning despite larger numbers pointing otherwise. 

"Religion always works against scienece" "All chinese food gives me a stomach ache since this did." "This game is in for a big turn around because it's suddenly selling great on Amazon!" 

Well that and people call what really is common sense "logic."

Not to their own faults... I think it's just one of those things who's definition has got muddied as time has gone on.

Logic is much more narrow and smaller then one would think. 

No I think our definitions differ on "common sense" as I think deductive reasoning should be part of common sense.

Deductive reasoning? Are you sure you don't mean inductive reasoning? Deductive reasoning is a form of logic.

There's Deductive, Modal, Mathematical, Computer, Phillosphical... and two or three other forms of logic.

You can disagree but you'd be disagreeing with the definitions of deductive reasoning and logic. 

LOL you opinion of me threw your tone continues to make me laugh. You seem to believe I am very stupid and you are very smart. Could it be the other way around?

Semantics is very subjective. Common sense does overlap logic, as it is sense and not believe.

No, i just think your misinformed. Deductive Reasoning is a branch of logic.

There is a problem however that a lot of people who claim to be using deductive reasoning are in fact using inductive reasoning.

If you get rid of all "Common sense", but keep logic you end up getting back the "common sense" that is infact deductivly sound. As for Common sense to be Common sense it has to be deductivly sound.

It's the only way to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

Common Sense doesn't overlap logic. Logic is what "proves" common sense.

Well the Common sense that is based off of deductive reasoning and other logics. As in the stuff in the vastly overused saying "Common sense isn't so common."

Deductive reasoning isn't anymore a part of Common Sense as Gasoline is part of the car it helps run.

Most people however treat all Common sesne (Aka sense that is common, what most people believe) as if it was deductivly sound... which it isn't.

When you run an expierment you get rid of all Common sense so that you can prove it... and so that you can be sure that what you consider common sense is infact true.

Perferably this is how arguements would go to as it would leave you only with the facts. 

Sense reffers to physiological methods of perception. You use that to interpret everything including science experiements.

Common sense based on a strict construction of the term, consists of what people in common would agree on: that which they "sense" (in common) as their common natural understanding.

Understanding reffering to the conclusions people draw. Conclusion are formed through reasonning, Reasonning icludes various forms of logic.

Logic is a piller of common sense, and thus your statement wrong and in need of clairification.

Logic is a tool not a matieral. Logic can build a conclusion, much how I can build a house. I am not the house. A Pillar of something is not a part of it. It's what holds something up.

Many things that are and have been "Common sense" aren't built on logic.

So long as the same logic is around the same conclusions will be reached. Therefore there is no need to keep around common sense during an arguement or expierment as the expierement or arguement will lead back to said "Common" sense if it still does hold true.

If however it isn't true. It will be disporven as logic will bring about a different conclusion.

This is why expierments have a null hypothesis.

Ones beliefs will not effect the actual outcome of an expierment like Peter Pan.

Therefore the only reason to bring in any preconceived notions into the expierment after it has been formed is if you are afraid you will be wrong.

If you aren't willing to shed yourself of the belief that you might be wrong after the expierment is set up you really have no reason to be doing the experiment in the first place. (Or to argue anything.)

You are seperating common sense and logic I am not saying they are inseparable but rather nonexclusive terms.

I think you have trouble reading.

Just a correction a Tigon comes from a Female Lion and a Male Tiger. A Liger is the largest Cat on earth and is from a Male Lion and a Female Tiger.

 A Liger

Here is a video