Feynman could tell whether or not there was a flaw in a proof just by hearing what the conclusion was and applying common sense. That worked for him since he ha

Feynman could tell whether or not there was a flaw in a proof just by hearing what the conclusion was and applying common sense. That worked for him since he had a really good intuition based on decades of thinking and personally observing. Let me give an example. Let's say that you read a study by Cheesodyne Rocket Corporation that the Moon is made of extremely valuable and delicious Stilton cheese. You could invest in this company based on their scientific analysis, perhaps even redirect your entire society to paying Cheesodyne exorbitant amounts to spend 20 years building a rocket. Critics can be mocked, downvoted, and placed in shackles for being ignorant unscientific rubes who don't understand that all studies published in journals represent absolute Truth that May Not Be Questioned. Or you could use common sense and say that there's obviously a flaw in the study because the conclusion just ain't right.