# American culture - ignorant skepticism?



## moneyman (Apr 6, 2011)

I'm trying to figure out why here in the US we have what I term "ignorant skepticism". Allow me to explain.

In some societies, people are ignorant for various reasons. Thus, it is little surprise when they behave irrationally. 

However, one way to combat ignorance is through skepticism. People with a skeptical nature have a tendency to question why things are the way they are, and do not take answers from "authorities" at face value. This usually cuts through the ignorance by getting to the truth based upon credible evidence. It's a fundamental principle of educating oneself.

But a strange thing happens in the US. We have this cultural value of skepticism ingrained in us. We question authority. We question our government. We question our managers. We question our parents. We're skeptical. Part of it probably has to do with the marketing efforts we have been bombarded with since our infancy - someone is always trying to sell us something, and it's not always in our best interest. Someone is always trying to con us out of something.

So that's good. Skepticism is a valuable trait. But here's the rub - our cultural skepticism actually comes back to bite us. Why? Because we feel that by simply questioning and denying one thing, the opposite is automatically true. Regardless of whether the opposite is based upon credible evidence.

For example, look at global warming and the deniers. Look at how evolution is actually disputed by a huge number of people in this country. Look at how many people vote against their own best interests - and with a vengeance. Look at the hypocrisy of so many of our laws. Look at most conspiracy theories. So many questions are raised on the "given" answer, with great skepticism, but then the "alternative" conspiracy is accepted virtually carte blanche.

It's like our culture is skeptical in a half-assed way. We question something, but rather than follow it through to the facts, we simply take whatever the opposite argument is and latch on to that as if it were gospel.

How did this happen? Why did this happen? Why are people so eager to question the validity of something, but then embrace the closest alternative explanation without so much as a peep?

The reason I posted this in the "Science" section is because anyone with an interest in science has seen this over and over again. A major factor in science is skepticism and credible evidence. I feel the reason science is attacked and denied so frequently in this country is due to this "ignorant skepticism". At times it seems we are slowly slipping back to the medieval ages, where superstition reigns over reality. How do we combat it? First we must find the root cause.

Anyone following me?


----------



## fredbloggs02 (Dec 14, 2009)

I don't live in America, though I view with disdain anything that feels itself divine enough to feed on the frailty of many being less than a leech itself incapable of better. Though such is irrelevant those of the higher echelons of man. Must the alternative skepticim they propose lead to a single strand of evidence compatible to everyone without interpretation?...No... I can't find it within myself to hate such people, I feel sorrow for their blind arrogance but to hate is too strong, I lose myself enough now berating them such is the triviality placing an insect in it's hive without the impetus to lift itself into curiosity again. They will never succeed because to encapsulate the creative soul still longing to seek truth without the hopelessness and loss of themselves is outside their powers.

The idea of "ultimate truth" is barbaric crassness. I simply haven't the time to go into my reasons here though I don't have much to say to these people, nor any view put forward so lackadaisically without passion or conviction as a slave. It leaves me uninspired and unmotivated to create better. It seems as a clumsy beast endeavouring to jump on my wings without the quads to leap or the dexterity to maneuver, simply straight with it's eyes firmly closed. I'd have felt slightly better for it had it at least taken a leap but it doesn't... The problem with logic is that it belongs to noone. For every assertion of the straight line it only intersects with genius and creativity sporadically and bows down lowest when people willing to be carried ascend to it. Then the illusion of a strong logic and a weak logic takes place when infact, all but stagnation. It isn't enough to seperate man from beast. As an animal I would be angry if following my stringently, bowed truths someone destroyed my home as I left to crusade toward them. For logical truth, first it requires you scream for it to bend down to be carried and lose something in your looking upwards, and feel something seeing it channeled through you as though you were made powerful by it. To command ourselves to anothers rhythm rather than a direct order which all but the more sophisticated men find appealing. It satisfies most people because in short, most people are born to use their right hand and "Very few people today are capable of seeing or saying anything new."-Raskolnikov. It works as a straight line to an unconscious result inherrent in the system whoever toys with it.

It has no right to kill creativity, it remains a toy of the masses as is it's destiny, created by those incapable of themselves. Evidence is only a tool it sees only as far as the common eye touches. It should therefore be outgrown and eviscerated by extraoidinary men.


----------



## moneyman (Apr 6, 2011)

Yeah. This thread was a dud. Oh well, it was on my mind at the moment. Let it quietly rest in peace.


----------



## RyanJ (Mar 31, 2009)

It's actually a very good / interesting thread and I wish I had more time to comment on it. If I am understanding you correctly it's the idea that we are skeptical, but unreasonably so. We are all conspiracy theorists...Truthers, Birthers, Roswell, Kennedy, Alex Jones etc... 

I think the basic idea is that not many people really understand reasonable standards of evidence or how to examine facts in order to form a realistic view of the world. Is that what you are getting at here?


----------



## moneyman (Apr 6, 2011)

RyanJ said:


> It's actually a very good / interesting thread and I wish I had more time to comment on it. If I am understanding you correctly it's the idea that we are skeptical, but unreasonably so. We are all conspiracy theorists...Truthers, Birthers, Roswell, Kennedy, Alex Jones etc...
> 
> I think the basic idea is that not many people really understand reasonable standards of evidence or how to examine facts in order to form a realistic view of the world. Is that what you are getting at here?


Precisely.

I'm tempted to blame many reasons for it, the media being one of the top. But not all blame can be put upon external factors. Why haven't more people been taught or figured out how to think critically and use sound logic and reason? Why so quick to judge, why so quick to accept claims without credible evidence?

Granted their is a lot of misinformation mixed in with all the decent stuff. Look at your emails for example, we've all seen those irritating "chain" emails that are 99% of the time riddled with misinformation or downright lies. And people eat it up, they buy it face value, even when a simple factcheck or snopes search immediately would shut it down.

But again, why aren't people savvy to the misinformation? It's usually very easy to vet out.

When I read international media and opinion, it is clear that many of them laugh at us and shake their heads because of this. How can such a supposedly enriched and enlightened and powerful nation have so many ignoramuses? I don't think it's that we're not capable as a people, it's just something has gone wrong culturally, somewhere along the line.

Ah look, you got me all fired up again.

Plus maybe this belongs in the society and culture section. How do I get it moved over there?


----------



## moneyman (Apr 6, 2011)

And speaking of the media, I believe anyone who reads or watches the news should be required to read (and comprehend) this first -

Propaganda Model

The first two components, "Ownership" and "Funding" are usually well understood by experienced, skeptical people.

However pay close attention to the third component, "Sourcing". This one isn't always as well understood, yet it is one of the most damaging.

You see evidence of this one constantly, particularly anything military-related and even quite frequently (and less obviously) with large corporations.

Where are the reporters getting their information? The White House. The Pentagon. Press announcements from large corporations. Official gatherings specifically designed to address the media.

The point of news for these media giants is not to inform. It's to make money. Obviously they need to maintain credibility, or people won't bother anymore, but it's easy to maintain credibility if you claim you're sources are "official". Never mind that "officials" and "experts" (another BS term, "experts") have their own agendas to peddle, and truth is rarely one of them.

Report something damaging about these institutions, and guess who doesn't get invited back to the next "announcement"? Meanwhile all your competition does, and they get the "story" before you. Conflict of interest, anyone?

This is one reason why people like Michael Moore have become so popular in recent years. Because whether you like him or not, it's a breath of fresh air to hear someone actually investigating and reporting on things whether they damage the reputation of powerful politicians and corporations or not. He doesn't toe the line like mass media do, because he doesn't care if he pisses them off and they don't give him access to their "official" announcements later.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Shouldn't it be ignorant denial? (ignorant denialists?)

There are a few people here that fall into that category.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

moneyman said:


> Yeah. This thread was a dud. Oh well, it was on my mind at the moment. Let it quietly rest in peace.


You're posting in one of the slowest moving sections of the forum 

Anyway, I think that a big part of the problem is that logic isn't really taught in public schools in the US. If it were a part of the curriculum, or even a section on the ACTs, I think you would see a big change pretty fast.


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

People insulate themselves from the outside world and reject anything that doesn't directly affect them. I think a good majority of people who reject global warming, don't even really know what it is.


----------



## Zyriel (May 20, 2011)

Because the majority of people are like sheep and intolerant/closed-minded. Most don't care about something unless it directly involves them. Everyone is out for themselves and wants to fit in the mold. The corporate media controlled propaganda doesn't help either. We have a consumer culture that is filled with distractions and a buy mentality which contributes so much waste. One of the best quotes from fightclub: "Working jobs we hate in order to buy **** we don't need."











Those are funny but seriously sad at the same time.


----------



## TheLemon (Mar 29, 2011)

moneyman said:


> I'm trying to figure out why here in the US we have what I term "ignorant skepticism". Allow me to explain.
> 
> In some societies, people are ignorant for various reasons. Thus, it is little surprise when they behave irrationally.
> 
> ...


To be honest, people who blindly accept global warming annoy me more than those who deny it. The truth is, the science around global warming is very questionable and the more I read into it the more I realize how much guess work is involved. We currently do not understand our climate system enough to make any definitive conclusions on why the world is getting warmer. In 50 years the world may be warmer or colder, no one knows. All we really know is the world has been getting warmer over the last 30+ years.

Now, I'm not saying humans aren't destroying this planet, of course we need to move towards a more sustainable way of living. I just disagree with the scare tactics and misinformation that is being used to promote the green agenda. There are enormous amounts of money to made from green energy so a lot of people have very good reasons to push for rapid adoption of green policy.

One of the major problems with science in general is how much lobby groups are effecting the popular understanding and application of it. For example the meat industry have been particularly effective at avoiding or redirecting scrutiny. Vehicle pollution is the first thing people will think of when asked about the causes of increased greenhouse gas emissions when in fact the meat industry contributes more Co2 than all the worlds transport combined. When asked about cancer people will talk about smoking, UV light etc.. when in fact meat consumption is likely to be the number one cause of most cancers. Honestly, it seems that human knowledge is more a product of power than worth.


----------



## Misanthropic79 (May 6, 2011)

moneyman, you're preaching to the choir with me and a few others here it seems. Like Dave Chappelle, I'm a genetic dissenter. Never liked authority and learnt through life experience to always question it. Too many times being taught to think one way only to find out I was fed a fairytale and the truth wasn't so black and white, makes it hard to trust anything you're told. 

Although the rest of the western World doesn't share American values on questioning authority the inevitable blind trust in the information we're fed is common throughout the west. Australia, England and to a slightly lesser extent New Zealand and Canada. The latter 2 don't tend to play follow the leader as much as the rest of us.

People outside the west are usually more skeptical even though they're just as powerless as us westerners to do a thing about it. I vaguely remember a scene from the movie "Nixon" were a hippy chick is debating Nixon on "the Machine" and she awakens the realization in him (and the audience) that a U.S. President, always viewed as the most powerful man in the World couldn't stop the machine even if he wanted to. 

I myself believe in this line of thinking as defeatist as it is. The machine is an entity of sorts that can't be killed because it doesn't live or breathe, it just is. It's fuel is the ignorance and complacency of humanity.

Global warming (if it is happening) might be the solution to this merry-go-round of human existence though. A common misunderstanding is that humans are killing the planet. We don't have the means to kill the planet as of yet. Just the means to put the Earth back into an Ice Age that will set humanity's clock back to zero.

Problem solved!


----------



## sherbert (Jun 24, 2005)

VanDamMan said:


> People insulate themselves from the outside world and reject anything that doesn't directly affect them. I think a good majority of people who reject global warming, don't even really know what it is.


^^This. The same goes with evolution deniers. I'm not sure it's so much about actual skepticism for the sake of being contrary, it's the fact they're simply ignorant about the subject and choose not to elucidate their understanding. How many times have you heard, "we didn't evolve from monkeys!" in an argument against the existence of evolution. Technically they're right, but their assumption therefore is that the theory of evolution states that humans DID evolve from monkeys. No. :no

Also people who are unwilling to accept foundational scientific theories often find it doesn't mesh with their worldview. Obviously if someone raised with a religious, literalistic interpretation of the the bible any opposing view will not catch their interest. Their belief system is so integrated with everything that the notion of challenging those beliefs seems just awful.

In the case of disappearing oil resources. Remember 'drill baby drill'? Well, we do have oil resources that are currently being untapped, but the technology isn't quite there to take advantage of it yet. The concept that we just aren't drilling enough is silly and not looking at the problem realistically. It just catches the imagination because it keeps things comfortable and the status quo. Besides, it's easier to think that politicians are just lying to us than to admit that we have serious energy resource problems that are ahead of us.


----------



## btryan (Jun 3, 2011)

Scientific researches funded by the governments can be just as twisted as any politics.

Whether a result from a scientific research is "significant" or not is decided by the rule "p < 0.05" -- the probability of this to happen by pure chance is lower than 5%. So for example, if the increase or decrease of the global temperature is purely by chance, out of 20,000 researches, 1000 would report an increase, 1000 report a decrease, and 18,000 find it inconclusive. You only get more funding from the government if you can "prove" that the temperature is increasing, and only these 1000 papers will make their way onto scientific journals.

IMHO, men just haven't lived long enough to collect enough evidence.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Most scientists here get funding if they can create an unbiased experiment or analyze previously collected data from multiple sources to create models, which then should be tested to understand why they are believable...


----------



## btryan (Jun 3, 2011)

If there is no money, there is no scientific research, and no scientific journals neither. Do you, seriously, believe that all the funding providers are saints?


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jul 7, 2011)

I think people are skeptical of things when they don't match their world view, but accept them readily when they match. I know I can be guilty of this--when I read opinions/news/etc. that are more liberally-biased I tend to question them a lot less than if they are more conservative. 

But I agree that if logic were taught in schools more it would help a great deal.


----------



## Phoenix Rising (Jul 7, 2011)

The July 11th Colbert Report interview is related to this actually--you should check it out.


----------



## Kon (Oct 21, 2010)

moneyman said:


> The reason I posted this in the "Science" section is because anyone with an interest in science has seen this over and over again. A major factor in science is skepticism and credible evidence. I feel the reason science is attacked and denied so frequently in this country is due to this "ignorant skepticism". At times it seems we are slowly slipping back to the medieval ages, where superstition reigns over reality. How do we combat it? First we must find the root cause.
> 
> Anyone following me?


Yes. I think, as you mention there is a lot of interests served by making people think they are skeptical/independent thinkers, even though they aren't. It makes one feel they are mavericks. But as you say they just take it for granted that the opposite is true and many end up coming to, arguably, off-the wall conclusions. On average, science tends to remain in a state of perpetual inquiry (provisional acceptance until something better comes along). This is something lacking in "ignorant skepticism". So maybe not being confident in one's beliefs is a good thing, even though people often think it's not.


----------



## CoyoteNature (Apr 21, 2011)

I think its also about a belief in magic, whether or not it be science or politics or economics we often times act as if it can be wished into existence

The skepticism only goes far enough to satisfy this wish fulfillment but when it conflicts with reality and something challenges the worldview, then that something is rejected because it would require change, and struggle, and that doesn't buy into the idea that its magic, which usually supposably comes with little to no cost in our mind's view.

Also because of a belief in magic, it must always be simple, only simple answers are skeptical, complex answers are wrong, which is somewhat paradoxical because often times in a attempt to keep simplicity you go to great lengths which generate even more complex answers then what started it all in the first place.


----------



## CoyoteNature (Apr 21, 2011)

Kon said:


> Yes. I think, as you mention there is a lot of interests served by making people think they are skeptical/independent thinkers, even though they aren't. It makes one feel they are mavericks. But as you say they just take it for granted that the opposite is true and many end up coming to, arguably, off-the wall conclusions. On average, science tends to remain in a state of perpetual inquiry (provisional acceptance until something better comes along). This is something lacking in "ignorant skepticism". So maybe not being confident in one's beliefs is a good thing, even though people often think it's not.


I agree uncertainty is often times confused with no truth, people think that science is about certainty, but in reality they accept all kinds of uncertainty just when they go out in the world of technology, because the underpinnings of much of science that created it is not certain, at least not the 100 percent certainty most people are convinced most science is.


----------



## scriabin221 (Nov 16, 2008)

I didn't read any of the other posts because I'm a lazy American, so pardon me if my post is redundant, but I don't actually think the Americans who buy into those things are sceptical at all. It's an illusion created by people with horrible motives. I think scepticism is great when it's done for legitimate reasons.


----------

