"Common knowledge" should be suspect. For example, when I was a kid (many years ago), it was common knowledge that African elephants were never used in circuses because they were not trainable as are Asian elephants. Also, it was "common knowledge" that the reason Marco Polo's discovery of spices in China was so important is that due to no refrigeration, spices could be used to mask the smell of rotting meat so that it could still be eaten. Both "common knowledge" suppositions were in fact incorrect.
Oh, so because common knowledge has been proven wrong before, all common knowledge is therefore suspect. Got it.
Using this logic, studies and science should never be trusted either because they are often determined to be wrong. For examples, it was once known by science that the sun revolved around the earth. Fleischman-Pons claimed to have created nuclear fusion. Doctors believed the humors of the body controlled health. Studies have found that having a gun in the home is very dangerous to the occupants. Studies have found that more guns mean less crime.
Taking all this one step further, ALL KNOWLEDGE is suspect because there have been problems with it in the past.
Your contention that common knowledge should be suspect is therefore deemed noncredible because you have been wrong on things in the past. My assessment that your contention is wrong is also deemed noncredible because I have been wrong on things in the past.
All of a sudden, we know nothing because everything on which we base our knowledge has been found by somebody, somewhere, to have faults.
You were the one who asked for the BASIS of downloading mags. Experience may certainly be the basis for it and the information became common knowledge. Just because you think common knowledge may be suspect for certain things does not make it wrong in every case. Yes, common knowledge can be wrong. But you what? Common knowledge can also be right.
