Why must textual critics use common sense when a method produces an unlikely result?

In the field of textual criticism, textual critics must employ common sense because no methodological framework—no matter how scientific or mechanical—can replace the judgment of a skilled scholar. The history of the discipline demonstrates that rigid adherence to formulas, such as the stemmatic method, can lead to "grotesque" or illogical results when applied to unsuitable texts.1

The necessity for common sense arises from several fundamental principles:

• Each case is unique: There is no single, universally applicable method; every text presents a special set of circumstances that requires the critic to define the problem and its limitations individually.2
• Discrimination is essential: The term "critic" derives from the Greek word for "judge." A critic’s primary role is to discriminate between variants or between a transmitted text and a conjecture, a process that requires reason and judgment rather than blind adherence to rules.2
• Methodological limitations: Even sophisticated mechanical or genealogical methods can fall into circular reasoning or fail to account for the complexities of a contaminated tradition. As the scholar Richard Bentley famously noted, "reason and the facts outweigh a hundred manuscripts".132

Ultimately, the best texts are produced by the best scholars, as the most effective critical work relies on balancing probabilities and evaluating readings on their intrinsic merits rather than relying on the "logical" application of a flawed method.13