When a group of Australians was asked why they believed climate change was not happening, about 36% said it was “common sense”, according to a report published last year by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. This was the most popular reason for their opinion, with only 11% saying their belief that climate change was not happening was based on scientific research.

        But what do we mean by an appeal to common sense? Presumably it’s an appeal to rationality of some sort that forms the basis of more complex reasoning. The appeal to common sense, however, is usually nothing more than an appeal to thinking that just feels right, but what feels right to one person may not feel right to another. Whether it feels right is usually a reflection of the world view and ideologies we have internalised, and that frames how we interact with new ideas. When new ideas are in accord with what we already believe, they are more readily accepted.  When they are not, they, and the arguments that lead to them, are more readily rejected.

        We often mistake this automatic compatibility testing of new ideas with existing beliefs as an application of common sense, but, in reality, it is more about judging than thinking. As Nobelist Daniel Kahneman notes in Thinking Fast and Slow, when we arrive at conclusions in this way, the outcomes also feel true, regardless of whether they are. We are not psychologically well equipped to judge our own thinking.

        We are also highly susceptible to a range of cognitive biases such as giving preference to the first things that come to mind when making decisions or giving weight to evidence.

        One way we can check our internal biases and inconsistencies is through the social verification of knowledge, in which we test our ideas in a rigorous and systematic way to see if they make sense not just to us, but to other people. The outstanding example of this socially shared cognition is science.

        That does not mean that individuals are not capable of excellent thinking, nor does it mean no individual is rational. But the extent to which individuals can do this on their own is a function of how well integrated they are with communities of systematic inquiry in the first place. You can’t learn to think well by yourself.

        In matters of science at least, those who value their common sense over methodological, collaborative investigation imagine themselves to be more free in their thinking, unbound by involvement with the group, but in reality they are tightly bound by their capabilities and perspectives. We are smarter together than we are individually, and perhaps that’s just common sense.

解析：D。根据题干中的at the end of the passage可定位至原文最后一段。该段提到，在科学问题上，那些看重常识而不讲方法、不重协作地进行探寻研究的人反而会受制于自己的能力和视角，我们在集体中比独自一人时更聪明。由此可知，要想克服科学探究方面的局限性，人们需要讲究方法、注重协作。D项与此内容相符，故为正确答案。

错项排除：A项利用原文中的perspectives设置干扰，但其中的stimulate people’s interest在文中无依据，故排除。B项在原文中无依据，故排除。C项利用原文中的free in their thinking、unbound和common sense等细节词进行拼凑，但原文中说的是注重常识的人会误以为自己能更自由地思考，而不是作者主张个人应该自由思考，故C项错误。