I assume this question is different from the other question about the use of common sense in skepticism, because you're asking if the truth can be determined through common sense. Well, a pragmatist might say so, but a stickler would not:
It is indeed a great gift of God, to possess right, or (as they now
call it) plain common sense. But this common sense must be shown
practically, by well-considered and reasonable thoughts and words, not
by appealing to it as an oracle, when no rational justification can be
advanced. To appeal to common sense, when insight and science fail,
and no sooner -- this is one of the subtle discoveries of modern times,
by means of which the most superficial ranter can safely enter the
lists with the most thorough thinker, and hold his own. But as long as
a particle of insight remains, no one would think of having recourse
to this subterfuge. For what is it but an appeal to the opinion of the
multitude, of whose applause the philosopher is ashamed, while the
popular charlatan glories and confides in it?
Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (1783)