nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What does "generally accepted" mean?

Turley

Obni wrote:

With an Irish Skeptics meeting to be held soon "to discuss future directions and activities of the society", would anyone like to start kicking around ideas. Particularly, it would be interesting to hear from those not planning to attend the meeting.
For starters, can the cause of critical thinking be popularized in Ireland?

Maybe for starters skeptics could be, ahhh, skeptical about matters generally accepted.

Discussions here tend to support whatever is generally accepted. Individuals who are genuinely skeptical are dismissed by the group as conspiraloons and then the discussion is closed.

History and science are seldom in doubt. Popular doubt is safely cast on hypnotists, religion, and chiropractors. And this we call "critical thinking?"
How does this group think differently from what is already popular?
Most people generally accept history and science as true and generally don't believe the same things not believed here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Myksyk

If by "generally accepted" you mean by the general population, then you will in fact find that we are skeptical of these things ... for example, the majority of the general public (in the US in this example) are creationists of one sort or another while only about 10% on everage belief in naturalistic evolution. See here. High percentages of people also believe in everything from reincarnation to ESP to ability to speak to the dead etc. If you think skeptics are safely treading the 'popular' or 'generally accepted' line then you are mistaken.

If you mean "generally accepted" by science, then I would suggest that this suggests that substantial amounts of evidence have been presented over time in support of the position deemed "accepted". Science is a good bet when deciding whether to accept conclusions about how the world works. Science is also self-corrective over time and encourages people to add information and evidence to come closer and closer to the truth of things. Like any human endeavour it is fallible but it is the best and most succesful framework ever devised for seeking and finding fundamental truths about how the world works. Science is one of the greatest achievements of humankind and has constructed a system which slowly but surely follows the evidence (the shift towards acceptance of the role of H Pylori in abdominal ulceration is a good example of science actually works, demanding the accumulation of supportive evidence before accepting positions, and always viewing current positions as tentative).

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

If by "generally accepted" you mean by the general population, then you will in fact find that we are skeptical of these things ... for example, the majority of the general public (in the US in this example) are creationists of one sort or another while only about 10% on everage belief in naturalistic evolution. See here. High percentages of people also believe in everything from reincarnation to ESP to ability to speak to the dead etc. If you think skeptics are safely treading the 'popular' or 'generally accepted' line then you are mistaken.

How to advance critical thinking?

It is perfect irony that the link you provide as the source for what is "generally accepted" is a generally accepted news magazine poll. This same magazine told the gullible American people that they preferred George W. Bush to be their president and their second choice was John Kerry. Never mind that these two men are so unpopular they will not step in front of a pubic audience that has not been pre-selected to cheer for them. Bush is surrounded by body guards to protect him from his "adoring public" that would love nothing more than to jeer and spit on him.

News polls in the USA are a tool to shape public opinion by telling the gullible masses what they believe.
Critical thinking might be advanced in Ireland when Newsweek is no longer the unquestioned "Voice of God."

When I said, "Maybe for starters skeptics could be, ahhh, skeptical about matters generally accepted." That especially means to be skeptical about "generally accepted" news magazine polls.

robindch

> News polls in the USA are a tool to shape public opinion by
> telling the gullible masses what they believe.

Um, this is a completely circular assertion. But assuming that you misphrased something, what's your contention -- that opinion polls are manipulated to declare, and then form, 'public opinion'? If so, what's your evidence for this? And if you don't believe publications which are considered moderately respectable and truthful by the rest of us, like Newsweek et al, then whom *do* you believe, and how do you make that choice that they are trustworthy?

At some stage, you have to 'bottom out' and trust *something* and I'm curious to learn how you determine that correct, and crucial, point because many of the opinions you've expressed on this board over the last few months run rather counter to the general thrust of the very small section of any population which maintains what I think it's fair to refer to as a 'skeptical opinion'.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

> News polls in the USA are a tool to shape public opinion by
> telling the gullible masses what they believe.

Um, this is a completely circular assertion. But assuming that you misphrased something, what's your contention -- that opinion polls are manipulated to declare, and then form, 'public opinion'?

Thank you Robin for making the point clear. Yes, that is my contention.

robindch wrote:

If so, what's your evidence for this?

If there is evidence of this it is not "my" evidence per se, which might prejudice those who favor or dislike me in considering "the" evidence.

Before we square off and take sides perhaps we should first agree on what is we mean by "public opinion." We could start with what others have said. Mark Twain called public opinion the aggregate of "corn porn opinion" which he described as:

Mark Twain called these beliefs "corn-pone opinions": those opinions people hold, not because they have reasoned them out for themselves or because they are derived from first hand experience, but because a person "must feel and think with the bulk of his neighbors, or suffer damage in his social standing and in his business properties."

To Twain corn-pone opinions derive from the "inborn requirement of self-approval," which, "as a rule has it's source in but one place and not elsewhere-- the approval of other people." Twain wrote that the aggregate of corn-pone opinions together make up Public Opinion which is held in reverence and some think of as "The Voice of God."

The U.S. President Abraham Lincoln had this to say about public sentiment:

In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.

Lincoln does not say who moulds public sentiment but he recognizes the power of those who do. Can we agree that "public opinion" is the popular view of the public? Do you want to add to this?

robindch wrote:

And if you don't believe publications which are considered moderately respectable and truthful by the rest of us, like Newsweek et al, then whom *do* you believe, and how do you make that choice that they are trustworthy?

At some stage, you have to 'bottom out' and trust *something* and I'm curious to learn how you determine that correct, and crucial, point because many of the opinions you've expressed on this board over the last few months run rather counter to the general thrust of the very small section of any population which maintains what I think it's fair to refer to as a 'skeptical opinion'.

- robin.

You raise some excellent issues here. It is certainly the next logical question. But this is getting ahead of where we are. I did not discover who I could trust until after I first discovered who I could not trust!

After we agree on what is "public opinion" we could consider if there is evidence news polls which are part of news organizations like Newsweek, Time, ABC, The Washington Post, and NY Times form public opinion. Do you have any thoughts on how "public opinion" is formed? And what role do print and broadcast journalism play, if any, in forming "public opinion?"

Danno

For me, "Generally accepted" means 50% plus one unit.

Turley

Danno wrote:

For me, "Generally accepted" means 50% plus one unit.

Danno-
Althougn a message by me appears first here, I did not start this thread titled "What does 'generally accepted mean?"
The thread was given the title by the moderator who started this thread.

The original comment I was responding to is no longer on this thread. I believe the topic was how to increase interest in skepticism. The question, "what does generally accepted mean?" is a odd topic in my opinion. The broader discussion concerning interest in skepticism or what is a skeptic would be a better subject title I think.

I noticed you have invited people to join a discussion on evolution at another area under religion and you provided a link. If people still want to discuss evolution I don't understand why two threads with a lot of background information already posted have been closed here. A new discussion somewhere else would require people to start all over again restating points already made. Why is it that we can discuss evolution there and not here where all of the previous posts and arguments are already available?

I am sure it is difficult for a moderator here to please everyone and I don't want to give the moderator a hard time.

Perhaps Davros can join us and explain why it was necessary to close the discussion while skeptics apparently still want to continue the dialog? Would Davros consider reopening the discussions he has locked us out of, if skeptics want to continue the dialog and it is generally accepted (50% + 1)?
-Turley

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

When I said, Maybe for starters skeptics could be, ahhh, skeptical about matters generally accepted." That especially means to be skeptical about "generally accepted" news magazine polls.

Unfortunately, these polls are validated elsewhere. For example, the ISS carried out its own poll of Psychology students in a Dublin University in 2001. The results included the following:

39% reported belief in ESP
39% reported belief that houses can be haunted
13% reported belief in possession
42% reported belief that ghosts or the spirits of dead people can return
47% reported belief in telepathy
13% reported belief that extraterrestrial beings have visited the earth
38% reported belief in clairvoyance
21% reported belief that people can hear from or communicate mentally with someone who has died
20% believe in astrology
13% reported belief in witches
26% reported belief in reincarnation
9% reported belief in channeling

These are the beliefs of educated young people. Worse, these are the beliefs of educated young people supposedly engaged in the scientific study of human behaviour and cognition. There's a lot of work to be done!!!!

davros

Turley wrote:

The thread was given the title by the moderator who started this thread.

Apologies if I misrepresented your point. I split the other thread because we don't get enough threads discussing practical suggestions or policy directions for the ISS. Thus I wanted to keep it free of philosophical discussions on the nature of skepticism, etc.

The question, "what does generally accepted mean?" is a odd topic in my opinion.

I might have missed the point of your post but you did use the phrase "generally accept(ed)" three times in that one post. So it seemed central to me. Anyway, I think it's an interesting question

The broader discussion concerning interest in skepticism or what is a skeptic would be a better subject title I think.

Too late to change it now. But you can always open a thread with a broader title.

I am sure it is difficult for a moderator here to please everyone and I don't want to give the moderator a hard time.

Cheers

Perhaps Davros can join us and explain why it was necessary to close the discussion while skeptics apparently still want to continue the dialog?

Not on this thread I won't (anyway, I explained the reason when I closed it). I suggested to you before that you could open a new thread on the merits of closing discussions. I still prefer that idea to hijacking other threads to discuss my moderation style.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

These are the beliefs of educated young people. Worse, these are the beliefs of educated young people supposedly engaged in the scientific study of human behaviour and cognition. There's a lot of work to be done!!!!

Myksyk
Thank you for reposting most of Obni's original message from the thread, "How do you get a Skeptic to beat Britney Spears, now that e-bay is bigger than a god?" with you added comment above.

My point was that since the concern is with what is popular we might consider the nature of what is popular. I used the phrase "generally accepted" because "popular" has a positive connotation and we should consider "unpopular" as well. For example "skepticism" might be called more unpopular than "Britney."

At great risk of offending our moderator, I would prefer if this discussion was not being held on two threads at the same time. I don't mind the role of a moderator keeping some order, if people are impolite, but dialog must be free flowing without controls if the truth is the goal. My sincere apologies to Davros.

davros

Turley wrote:

but dialog must be free flowing without controls if the truth is the goal

I like that idea in general but it's part of the rules of the board: stick to the topic at hand. It's easier for people to follow the discussions that interest them that way.

Obni asked a specific question on the thread he started and I don't want to see that question buried in 300 posts on a more general subject.

robindch

> Do you have any thoughts on how "public opinion" is formed? And
> what role do print and broadcast journalism play, if any, in
> forming "public opinion?"

It seems to me that there are several strands to what's referred to as 'public opinion', and each feed off each other in a neat example of one of Hofstadter's 'strange loops'.

Firstly, there's the opinion as gathered by opinion poll researchers, Gallup et al, which I believe is largely accurate in the first instance -- I've seen little enough evidence of any fakery going on in the *reputable* pollsters, and plenty to indicate that they're doing a good job. What happens to the results of opinion polls, though, after they leave Gallup is either a quick death, or a kneading at the rollers of the political rumor mill to serve as soundbites for some gormless, or malicious, politician or other, in which case it serves to unbalance the minds of the undecided.

Secondly, there's opinion presented as fact, as dictated by allegedly-impartial institutions such as Fox News and much of the rest of Murdoch's massive media empire. Here, the ideas propagated are dictated to the copywriters and broadcasters by management, at the behest or in the interest, it seems, of their political friends -- see the excellent documentary "Outfoxed" for details of this.

Thirdly, there's the more straight-forward case of politicians and other societal *leaders* of simply lying to their adherents, and being believed. I'm afraid, despite the contention of most people that they don't trust politicians, the simply observable facts indicate that many people do.

A useful, basic example of the above three strands coming together occurred during the leadup to the invasion of Iraq -- (a) Bush and Blair both banging on about WMD's, claiming that the evidence was incontrovertible (but nobody was allowed to see it), (b) many news organizations reporting the facts credulously, and so convincing a few people not already convinced by (a), and (c) opinion polls stating that significant portions of the population believed the allegations, no doubt convincing further people. One year after the initial invasion, there was still a significant majority of people who believe that Hussein had WMD's (see this link for stats from April '04, and this contrasting report from October '04).

Our creationist friends, too, proudly charge through the above too, with fraudulent institutions like The Institution for Creation Research and Ken Ham's AiG confidently passing off n'th-hand atavistic beliefs as established fact; (b) Bush, Reagan, Blair, Robertson, Falwell et all, either casting doubt upon the work of evolutionary scientists, or simply ignoring it and (c) Ham, Hovind, Grant Jeffery and the rest of then, producing false opinion polls indicating that evolution is on the retreat amongst qualified professionals.

As an antidote to the above, one can do various things:

1. Study many different fact sources -- while institutions like Fox News, The Daily Telegraph are well beneath contempt, there are various ones which aren't, the BBC being the best, though there are others.

2. Look at claimant's self-interest in the success of belief in the claim -- Bush got himself re-elected on foot of his invasion of Iraq and his declaration of a 'war on terror' (conveniently without an enemy) and bear in mind that re-election counts as success for a politician. Continuing, we see that creationists, and religions in general, are powerful, rich organizations and have a considerable financial interest in propagating their own notions.

3. Study the source opinion polls closely, and understand what was being asked, how it was being asked, and how the results are being presented.

4. Bear in mind that if you do not understand the problem sufficiently well, then your opinion upon it is worthless and you should defer if asked. It always amuses me to see the generally-low percentage of 'undecided' in any opinion poll -- presumably the remainder believes themselves well-enough informed to have an opinion worth hearing (which, if I could go out on a limb here, seems to be highly questionable).

As a related footnote, Robert Trivers, who did much of the original work in the area of evolutionary psychology (as popularized by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene and elsewhere) is current working on an evolutionary explanation for self-deception -- see this article for some interesting thoughts, towards the end of the article.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

> Do you have any thoughts on how "public opinion" is formed? And
> what role do print and broadcast journalism play, if any, in
> forming "public opinion?"

Firstly, there's the opinion as gathered by opinion poll researchers, Gallup et al, which I believe is largely accurate in the first instance -- I've seen little enough evidence of any fakery going on in the *reputable* pollsters, and plenty to indicate that they're doing a good job.

How can you know the difference between sources doing a "good job" above and the sources of propaganda below?

robindch wrote:

...the rest of Murdoch's massive media empire. Here, the ideas propagated are dictated to the copywriters and broadcasters by management, at the behest or in the interest, it seems, of their political friends...AND ...there's the more straight-forward case of politicians and other societal *leaders* of simply lying to their adherents, and being believed. I'm afraid, despite the contention of most people that they don't trust politicians, the simply observable facts indicate that many people do.

If you are correct that some of the media are feeding you propaganda how do you know the sources that you trust are not just better or more effective at propaganda? Bush and Blair could not have promoted the War in Iraq and WMDs without a compliant press to publicize and repeat the propaganda. And if they would lie about that what else would they lie about? 19 terrorist hijackeres? If they would lie in order to promote the invasion of a country that otherwise would not have been tolerable, is there anything they would not lie about?

Was the "Pearl Harbor" movie released by Hollywood in the summer before the 9/11 attacks a lucky coincidence that would help the public make the connection to WW2 patriotism? That film followed a series of movies that glorified war and the American fighting man, "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers." It would appear the public was being prepared for war before 9/11.
Throughout 2001, NBC Nightly News reflcted on the glorious WW2 heroes.

After the 9/11 attacks a photo of NYC firemen raising the U.S. flag was reminiscent of the Marines raising the American flag on Iwo JIma in 1945 (a staged propaganda photo).

Even the "critics" of the U.S. government always pull their punches and blame either the "left" or the "right." The problems are caused by a Clinton or a Bush but never by the permanent institutions of power, like the U.S. media.

Surely Bush does not shape the public opinion of the Americans or Blair the opinions of the Brits.

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

Surely Bush does not shape the public opinion of the Americans or Blair the opinions of the Brits.

No. If he did, there wouldn't have been hundreds of thousands of people coming out in protest against the Iraq war.

robindch

> If you are correct that some of the media are feeding you
> propaganda how do you know the sources that you trust
> are not just better or more effective at propaganda?

For the reasons which I outlined earlier. The case of the BBC, well, they're run off the back of a charter and strict journalistic guidelines which I've read and agree with; in the instances where I've seen what it's reported first-hand, its reports match my own observations; the general 'tone' of the reportage is generally calm, well-researched, unjumpy, peceptive and rarely resorting to opinion-sentences, instead letting people speak for themselves. Finally, and most importantly, they don't have any particular political bias that I can see, despite the contentions to the opposite of whichever party happens to be in power at the time in the UK. All of these things togther make it unlikely that it's operating as a propaganda machine, and more like it claims to be, a relatively unbiased news outlet.

> After the 9/11 attacks a photo of NYC firemen raising the U.S.
> flag was reminiscent of the Marines raising the American flag
> on Iwo JIma in 1945 (a staged propaganda photo).

Quite right, and an excellent photo it was too. Then look at Bush's standing in the polls after he stood up on top of the smoking ruins with the loud-hailer and the fireman, cashing in on the disaster. Jeez, that was really cheap stuff, but people went for it in slack-jawed droves.

> Even the "critics" of the U.S. government always pull their
> punches and blame either the "left" or the "right."

Not in much of the stuff that I read. There is more to political and social commentary than the left and the right slagging each other off, and there do exist people who do not subscribe to classifications of 'left' and 'right' (and who are usually the ones worth listening to).

> Surely Bush does not shape the public opinion of the Americans
> or Blair the opinions of the Brits.

Yes, of course they do, and they know it well, particularly when it comes to scaring the bejesus out of their electorates. In one scary example, one of many in my own experience, two years ago, in New Zealand, having just flown in from a revolutionary part of California, I innocently asked one Pennsylvanian woman if Bush was popular in her part of the country and she replied furiously "if 3,000 people had been killed in your country, you'd love your president too" (to which I replied that in the north of Ireland, 3,000 people had been killed, but that we blamed the politicians; she didn't like that <sigh>). Anyhow, there are plenty of gullible fools like her in any country who will believe their leaders, in the absense of any ability on their own part to formulate their own opinions. Sad, but true.

- robin.

Turley

> Surely Bush does not shape the public opinion of the Americans
> or Blair the opinions of the Brits.

robindch wrote:

Yes, of course they do, and they know it well, particularly when it comes to scaring the bejesus out of their electorates.

SkepticOne wrote:

No. If he did, there wouldn't have been hundreds of thousands of people coming out in protest against the Iraq war.

This is interesting. Two people use good deductive reasoning and arrive at the opposite conclusion. How could this have happened? Could both conclusions be right? Could both conclusions be wrong?

Consider what does every magician's trick have in common? By what universal principle do magician's tricks fool an entire audience? Does anyone know? If not, how do we know that we are not being fooled?

Perhaps the magician Ian Rowland would tell us on April 6th.

robindch

> This is interesting. Two people use good deductive reasoning and
> arrive at the opposite conclusion. How could this have happened?

We're not arriving at separate conclusions -- my point is that there exists in any population a significant percentage that believes what they're told by their leaders and I'd estimate it to be aroud 35% of any population, depending a bit on the politicians, and the populations concerned. I didn't say anything about the other 65%, the segments which either don't believe everything that their told, or refuse to believe anything that they're told, parts of which segments were quite rightly (as I was) out on the streets waving banners, shouting and generally and making merry.

> how do we know that we are not being fooled?

We don't, but we can use reasoning to establish if there's a possibility that we might be, and base our actions upon the existence of this possibility.

Lincoln's old saw that "You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." seems appropriate here

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

-- my point is that there exists in any population a significant percentage that believes what they're told by their leaders and I'd estimate it to be aroud 35% of any population, depending a bit on the politicians, and the populations concerned.

I would say the number of people that believe what they're told by their leaders would be considerably higher. For example, when the leaders tell the population they prefer leader A or leader B because they are also told, that 97% of the voting population voted for A or B. Almost 99.9% of the population wiil agree. There is no visible dissent from what they are told.

The politicians, Tony Blair, George Bush, and even Bush's opponent John Kerry all told their populations that 19 terrorist hijackers attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 and there is no visible dissent. From day one this has been the dogma. Only a "nut" would want evidence.

The appearance of dissent, for example when these leaders and the public disagree, conceals the larger issues on which they all agree. And on the larger issues dissent is intolerable and squashed by all, especially the self-censoring mindless masses.

> how do we know that we are not being fooled?

Robindch wrote:

We don't, but we can use reasoning to establish if there's a possibility that we might be, and base our actions upon the existence of this possibility.

Many people might accept that the U.S. and British populations were fed propaganda during WW2 as part of the war effort, if true, did this practice ever end? if so, when? Effective propaganda would not appear to be propaganda, would it?

Again, what does every magician's trick have in common? By what universal principle do magician's tricks fool an entire audience?

SkepticOne

Turley wrote:

> This is interesting. Two people use good deductive reasoning and arrive at the opposite conclusion. How could this have happened? Could both conclusions be right? Could both conclusions be wrong?

I would agree with robindch that politicians influence public opinion. I would also agree with him that this influence is not total. If by shape you meant total control, then no, I don't think the politicians have sufficient control over public opinion to achieve this, hence protests against the war. If by general influence, then, of course, yes. That is the business they are in. They have to try and persuade the public that the course of action they are taking is the right one.

robindch

This thread has been split here into a separate one titled "Concerning the WTC attacks"

ISAW

robindch wrote:

This thread has been split here into a separate one titled "Concerning the WTC attacks"

Now Turley back to the chair. do you think it is "generally accepted " that a chair will not collapse when we sit on it or should we always check the manufacturers standards and the engineering diagrams of the chair and maybe learn some basic physics or engineering so we know the forces acting on the chair will not cause it to fall apart?

I am trying to get at the point that there is a difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact. Similar to the philosophical idea of open and closed questions. Now skep[tics IMO try to tackle open or semi open questions e.g. Moon landings were faked; psi powers can do X Y or Z; there are/were aliens on Mars; cold fusion can be done. They tackle these questions by looking at evidence and measuring things.

So if yo ubelieve something to be true that cant be measured or logically disproved it is not for skeptics though it might well be "generally accepted". It is "generally accepted" that God exists but that does not prove God exists nor does it make the existance of God a subject Skeptics should be discussing or devoting an inordinate amount of time to. It should however be mentioned that to a skeptic explainations like "God did it" arent good enough since they disregard the sicentific basis for anything. This I call an "instrumentalist cop out" e.g. Osianders Preface to Galileos On the turning of heavenly bodies see here http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Philosophy/UG/ugunits0304/scirevs03.html

e.g.

A: The Universe is expanding for billions of years we can measure it.
B: No it isnt God made it 4000 years ago!
A: How do you explain the measurement
B: God can make the evidence LOOK AS IF the Universe is much older.

Osiander does the same an Galileo. I would add that the instrumentalist cop out handed the interpretation of creation back to the Church and saved those who adopted it from splitting off with their own explaination. some didnt use it and ended up in trouble e.g. Roger Bacon

This last point is to illustrate that while science is absolute in some ways e.g. matter exists , there is a socio geo political context to all science. This is not to say that 9/11 or anybodys particular bugbear about "general acceptance" e.g. Einstein was wrong; hyperdrive can be built; is very relevant to that.

there are some simple things however that DO challenge the way we understand the world e.g. Young's slits, the EPR Aspect Expirement

Here is a real skeptic which I just discovered.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.chopin/

some great references from Bell to Bohm (Aspects EPR is outlined in detail) and homeopathy and Scientology and even Nizcor mixed in (but lets not get OT).

He fairly much fits the profile I just outlined.