The average person currently believes that...

* Bin Laden did 911
* Man made global warming is a fact
* There isn't a global conspiracy going back thousands of years
* etc

However, the average person isn't in a position to really know if those things are true. They watch the news and read the paper and they believe that what they're told is true.

People who read what you might call alternative news don't necessarily believe the above, and they usually question the mainstream, rather than believe it without at least checking out alternative explanations and making comparisons.

The mainstream "scientific" types talk about questioning things rather than believing everything they're told, yet they criticise those whose alternative views are based on doing just that, whilst not criticisng whatsoever those who believe the mainstream unquestioningly. It seems that for those people, it's not as important to question as it is to believe the mainstream, which is hypocritical.

A lot of us have no problem with those who want to question the mainstream storyline- the mainstream has been proven wrong before on countless occasions, after all. What irks us more is when conspiracy theorists and alternative news analysts start adhering to their sources with the same kind of absolute unquestionable faith they accuse of us "mainstreamers".

As far as the 9/11 Bin Laden thing, if mainstream engineers are wrong and there's something physically impossible in the mainstream storyline about how the towers fell, then those rogue engineers who "know the real truth" should be outperforming their peers and rising to the top of the pyramid, since they allegedly know so much more about how reality actually works (no, don't see any of them rising through the ranks or achieving things ordinary mainstream engineers can't do). As it stands, I have yet to see a widely-believed 9/11 conspiracy that didn't contain major holes in the plotline, and this seems to be the mainstream POV as well.

* There isn't a global conspiracy going back thousands of years


Ermm...

Are you saying there are people who believe that there is a "global conspiracy going back thousands of years"?

I would also like you to consider what that would entail and consider the global situation of mankind thousands of years ago... ie, a global conspiracy going back thousands of years would involve native people's around the world somehow conspiring together about something or other..


However, the average person isn't in a position to really know if those things are true.
Can you please explain who the non-average people who are in a position to know that there is a global conspiracy that goes back thousands of years for example?


They watch the news and read the paper and they believe that what they're told is true.

Can you link me anything at all that would suggest that there actually is a global conspiracy going back thousands of years?

It depends which issue you are talking about, but in regards to global warming, the alternative views are not generally based on a scientific understanding. There are many people who's goal is to confuse people on the issue in order to promote a political agenda. Scientific alternatives are always welcome, but liars are not.

Knowledge about Bin Laden is necessarily more secretive.

Bells, what you're talking about is all irrelevant. What I'm asking is, why should the average person, who is not in a position to know either way what the truth is, believe the mainstream.

Why are you resigned to ignorance? The average person could educate themselves on the data and make an informed judgment.

You're resigned to ignorance about the topic of this thread. The question is, why should the average person believe the mainstream.

Bells, what you're talking about is all irrelevant.

So a large portion of your OP is irrelevant?


What I'm asking is, why should the average person, who is not in a position to know either way what the truth is, believe the mainstream.
And I am asking you to provide evidence of what you have claimed is not mainstream. That being the supposed non-mainstream view that there may be or is a global conspiracy going back thousands of years. So can you provide evidence of this?

After all, you have claimed that the average person should not believe in the mainstream because they apparently do not know what the truth is. So why shouldn't the average person believe that there isn't a global conspiracy that has gone back thousands of years?

Most people don't know and don't care.

The question is, why should the average person believe the mainstream

They shouldn't and should be questioning everything that doesn't make sense.:(

Ermm...
Are you saying there are people who believe that there is a "global conspiracy going back thousands of years"?
Absolutely.


Can you link me anything at all that would suggest that there actually is a global conspiracy going back thousands of years?
For one (http://www.davidicke.com/).
Any of the websites (or books) dedicated to "exposing" the machinations of the Illuminati.
You mean you haven't come across this particular brand of nutter before? :eek:

Absolutely.


Okay then.


You mean you haven't come across this particular brand of nutter before?
I had heard of him but, ermm, how seriously is anyone going to take a person who believes in the whole reptilian theme thing..?

Wait..

People actually take this crackpot seriously?




AHAHAHAHAAA!!

I had heard of him but, ermm, how seriously is anyone going to take a person who believes in the whole reptilian theme thing..?
That's the question. ;) He's taken seriously enough to have managed to publish (and sell) a dozen or so books.
As for the reptilians - at one point he was accused of anti-semitism (supposedly "lizard" was code for "Jew") until an independent reporter managed to convince authorities (Canadian I think) that Icke did indeed mean giant bipedal baby-eating intelligent technology-using lizards.


Wait..
People actually take this crackpot seriously?
Remember Duendy? Matt Marr?
And they are all over the webitube.
It's amazing how one* little nerd manages to discover secrets held by an organisation that has survived thousands of years hidden from intelligence agencies, just by staying in the basement and meeting no one but fellow idoits over the internet. At the very least they should be applauded for their abilities. :p

* Per week apparently...

The average person currently believes that...

* Bin Laden did 911
* Man made global warming is a fact
* There isn't a global conspiracy going back thousands of years
* etc

However, the average person isn't in a position to really know if those things are true. They watch the news and read the paper and they believe that what they're told is true.

People who read what you might call alternative news don't necessarily believe the above, and they usually question the mainstream, rather than believe it without at least checking out alternative explanations and making comparisons.

The mainstream "scientific" types talk about questioning things rather than believing everything they're told, yet they criticise those whose alternative views are based on doing just that, whilst not criticisng whatsoever those who believe the mainstream unquestioningly. It seems that for those people, it's not as important to question as it is to believe the mainstream, which is hypocritical.

Pardon me but your assumption here is pretty stupid. Although there are certainly exceptions, most average people do NOT accept the mainstream at it's face value. Instead, they apply intelligence, reasoning and information from external sources - including a DECENT EDUCATION - before reaching any conclusions.

However, it's people like you (and a couple of others here) who will buy into ANY nutty claim because, among other things, your education is GREATLY lacking. It's people like you that keep the David Icke's of the world in business. And that's not a good testament of your ability to discern fact from fiction.:rolleyes:

Pardon me but your assumption here is pretty stupid. Although there are certainly exceptions, most average people do NOT accept the mainstream at it's face value. Instead, they apply intelligence, reasoning and information from external sources - including a DECENT EDUCATION - before reaching any conclusions.

However, it's people like you (and a couple of others here) who will buy into ANY nutty claim because, among other things, your education is GREATLY lacking. It's people like you that keep the David Icke's of the world in business. And that's not a good testament of your ability to discern fact from fiction.:rolleyes:

Your education is lacking.

Your education is lacking.

Certainty NOT in comparison to yours. Can you tell us exactly WHY you believe all the wacky things you do? The only "evidence" you have to support those things are the babblings of idiots.

Certainty NOT in comparison to yours. Can you tell us exactly WHY you believe all the wacky things you do? The only "evidence" you have to support those things are the babblings of idiots.

Your education is lacking. And learn to read. We're not talking about whether or not conspiracy theories are true.

The question is, why should the average person believe the mainstream.

They shouldn't blindly believe it. They should use their own rational judgement to come to the conclusion. People act like sheep a lot of the time though.
Besides, the mainstream is more often that not mostly correct, so its a safe bet.


It seems like you babbled too much in the original post so now the thread has been sidetracked. ;)

You're babbling.

Oh excellent.

The one person to actually answer your daft question and you come back with that. Genius.

Besides, the mainstream is more often that not mostly correct, so its a safe bet.


lol

lol, I see you point.

It does depend on the situation....
Evolution is mainstream for Scientists.
Religion is mainstream in USA. X Factor is mainstream TV.

Oh excellent.

The one person to actually answer your daft question and you come back with that. Genius.

That's not surprising - considering the person we're dealing with is obviously not the brightest bulb in the house. ;)

Your education is lacking. And learn to read. We're not talking about whether or not conspiracy theories are true.

Really?

You have posted a thread in the World Events forum, asking why the average person should believe in the "mainstream". It would seem you do not believe in the mainstream. Does that mean you are either below average? Or do you consider yourself to be above average?

At its crux, you are arguing that conspiracy theories are true. And this is not the only thread you have started where you argue this.

For example, I would imagine that it is a minority of the human population who believe in the whole reptilian theory. Why do you think this is so? Could it possibly be that the greater majority of the population have recognised and seen for themselves that the theory is bunk and that there aren't reptilians living in caves and running the world through so called elite bloodlines?

My advice to you and Mr Icke.. stop watching "V".

We're not talking about whether or not conspiracy theories are true.
So essentially you're asking "Why do people not believe in things that are probably not true?" Or "Why do people not believe in things for which they have no evidence/ no exposure to?".
:shrug:

As for the OP, you might as well ask "Why does the average person not have a degree in physics/ art/ pottery-making?"

It's a null question: people tend to go with the "mainstream" unless they have a specific interest in not doing so - "thousand-year old conspiracies" & c don't affect their daily lives as such - "knowing", one way or the other, doesn't put bread on the table.

Get use to it, it's the main reason why governments run like they do. Every average person will have an opinion and might even openly state that opinion, but when it comes to coordinating that into an overall structure, people either don't get it to work or they find a clandestine group of conspiracy buffs attempting to undermine it so they can maintain power.

Every time a politician gets in and goes back on their words, or proves to be corrupt, it's technically peoples own fault for voting them in, it's their own fault for allowing that corrupt system of politics to continue allowing such people in. The problem is that you can't ask for changes, you can't wish for changes and obviously if you attempt to force changes you'll find yourself going against the grain of those that what to maintain "their control".

Simply put, if you don't like what people are going with in the mainstream "Un-Subscribe".

So essentially you're asking "Why do people not believe in things that are probably not true?" Or "Why do people not believe in things for which they have no evidence/ no exposure to?".
:shrug:

As for the OP, you might as well ask "Why does the average person not have a degree in physics/ art/ pottery-making?"

It's a null question: people tend to go with the "mainstream" unless they have a specific interest in not doing so - "thousand-year old conspiracies" & c don't affect their daily lives as such - "knowing", one way or the other, doesn't put bread on the table.

What an idiotic response.

What an idiotic response.
In other words you can't answer my questions and have realised how ridiculous the OP was.
Okay.

You wanna take this outside?

If only we could!

In other words, you've found yourself SO outclassed here that you have to resort to childish threats, eh kid? Just can't take the heat with adults around.:rolleyes:

Why not do us all a favor and go away - FAR away!

Stupid ignorant sheeple.

Kellisness, dude, seriously, stop while you're so far behind.

Threatening and abusing members because they dare to challenge your unsupported and unsubstantiated posts in this thread (and others I might add) will only add to your now growing list of woes on this site.

If you cannot answer the questions asked of you in this thread, if you cannot respond to the challenges with proof or back up your claims, reacting like a child and comments about taking it outside, etc.. Well it makes you look like a twat.

And we don't want you to look like a twat.

If you cannot support your claims or debate issues without resorting to the whole 'lets take this outside' and 'you're a stupid head' argument, it may be best to not make such claims in the first place. The same applies to if you cannot and are unwilling to even discuss it or respond coherently.

The average person currently believes that...

* Bin Laden did 911
* Man made global warming is a fact
* There isn't a global conspiracy going back thousands of years
* etc

However, the average person isn't in a position to really know if those things are true. They watch the news and read the paper and they believe that what they're told is true.

But lots of people apparently don't believe these things, despite all the evidence that they are true.


People who read what you might call alternative news don't necessarily believe the above, and they usually question the mainstream, rather than believe it without at least checking out alternative explanations and making comparisons.

The "alternative news" is full of crackpot conspiracy theorists. The "average person" who takes the "alternative news" as fact is usually unqualified to make his own judgments when he disputes the "mainstream". What's going on there is that your unqualified person distrusts authority and so will believe anything that doesn't come from one of those authority figures he doesn't like. These unqualified people are mostly rebels without a clue.


The mainstream "scientific" types talk about questioning things rather than believing everything they're told, yet they criticise those whose alternative views are based on doing just that, whilst not criticisng whatsoever those who believe the mainstream unquestioningly. It seems that for those people, it's not as important to question as it is to believe the mainstream, which is hypocritical.

Take climate change, for instance. There are lots of questions about the details. But step one is establishing that it is occurring. And guess what? Over 95% of scientists who are actual experts in the field believe in anthropogenic climate change. Not because they are following the pack, but because they are qualified to draw correct conclusions from the evidence.


Bells, what you're talking about is all irrelevant. What I'm asking is, why should the average person, who is not in a position to know either way what the truth is, believe the mainstream.

You rely on experts all the time. When you're ill, do you go to your great aunt Maud and ask her to make some special tea to cure your infected leg? Or do you go to a qualified doctor to get some scientifically proven antibiotics?

When you're doing your tax return and you need help, do you ask your mate Dave at the pub to do it for you, or do you hire a taxation consultant or accountant?

When your car breaks down, do you ask the guy you met in McDonalds to fix it for you, or do you take it to a registered motor mechanic?

Then why, if you want to know about something like climate change, do you rely on some unqualified nut who has a facebook page, rather than on the IPCC - an organisation of qualified and experienced climatologists?

The average person currently believes that...

* Bin Laden did 911
* Man made global warming is a fact
* There isn't a global conspiracy going back thousands of years
* etc

However, the average person isn't in a position to really know if those things are true. They watch the news and read the paper and they believe that what they're told is true.
In general, people don't have time to investigate every claim in detail, so it's in our nature to accept what most others seem to believe to be true, unless there is some reason to think otherwise or investigate further.

I think that most people, if pressed, would admit that they don't know if Bin Laden was responsible for 911 (for example), and (if honest) that they don't care enough to check it out.


People who read what you might call alternative news don't necessarily believe the above, and they usually question the mainstream, rather than believe it without at least checking out alternative explanations and making comparisons.
I suggest that you'll find that most people don't unquestioningly accept media reports. Anyone with even a tiny bit of sense is able to realise that journalists have a job to do, and that job is to sell news, with reporting actual facts running a distant second.
Which is a good thing, because a lot of mainstream media is just crap. Unfortunately, many alternative news sources have similar problems. When an alternative source disagrees with a mainstream source, how do you personally decide how to proceed?


The mainstream "scientific" types talk about questioning things rather than believing everything they're told, yet they criticise those whose alternative views are based on doing just that, whilst not criticisng whatsoever those who believe the mainstream unquestioningly.
You won't usually get criticism for questioning the mainstream, you'll get criticism for a) not following through and learning from the responses to questions, and b) not questioning proposed alternative theories.


It seems that for those people, it's not as important to question as it is to believe the mainstream, which is hypocritical.
"Those people" are science zealots. There are a few around, and they do tend to get an easy ride because they're generally less annoying than the anti-science zealots.
But don't confuse science zealots with "mainstream 'scientific' types". It can sometimes be hard to tell which is which, but if are able to maintain an open, questioning, and learning (not teaching/preaching) tone to your posts, then you can ignore the ignorant taunts of the science zealots, and learn the good stuff from the people who know what they're talking about.

Kelish you know why it's a waste of time?

Basically this is how these types work. They reject everything that doesent conform to there belief system. In order words, they dont believe in anything that doesent have emperical testability thus we can say "God could exist based on .." or "Power groups can exist based on... " and they can say "Its not proven" even though we are following a line of logic that is sequenced together and is based on common sense and proof. Now unless it blatant; the masses will refute it ; than when its common knowledge the aptitute of thinking turns into "nothing lost, nothing gained" and than eventually turn into "meh"
and unless they see a direct link implicating a group screaming there trying to take over the world or proof of god reigning from above they will continue stating the burden of proof is on you evading thought provoking discussion because weve been so used to just having things get figured out for us instead of doing it ourselves.

even though you have evidence and your logic is deducted and based on sense and evidence unless its the physical kind of evidence being revealed directly implicating the illuminati, god, or some other secret or supernatural thing that cannot be refuted in any way, youll be called a crank.

Thus pointless those who are not narrow minded will see and those unwilling to do so will remain with there eyes closed. For the purpose of which I do understand.

I guess some people just feel the need to be exploited! All right, send me $10,000 G's and I will tellyou where and who the Illuminati are!

Why should the average person believe the mainstream?

Because the average person is brainwashed and narrow-minded, and in denial about it.

Whether or not certain conspiracies are true, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that a person of authority getting away with a conspiracy would be easy enough, since people are pre-conditioned to believe that conspiracies are beyond human capability. Unless of course it's written in a history book... then the average fool has no problem believing that such a conspiracy took place- in the less-civilized past. But believing in present-day conspiracy activates some sort of mental block for most people.

Because the average person is brainwashed and narrow-minded, and in denial about it.
Really?
How did you escape this "brainwashing"?
Please provide some support for your contentions.


since people are pre-conditioned to believe that conspiracies are beyond human capability
This is, of course, arrant nonsense.


But believing in present-day conspiracy activates some sort of mental block for most people.
Evidence please.

Because the average person is brainwashed and narrow-minded, and in denial about it.

Whether or not certain conspiracies are true, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that a person of authority getting away with a conspiracy would be easy enough, since people are pre-conditioned to believe that conspiracies are beyond human capability. Unless of course it's written in a history book... then the average fool has no problem believing that such a conspiracy took place- in the less-civilized past. But believing in present-day conspiracy activates some sort of mental block for most people.

Bull !!! You must live in some sparsely-settled little corner of the world where everyone is particularly uneducated and thick-headed to think that. And they probably look upon you as the local brainiac, right???:bugeye:

That's certainly not the case across the population as a whole.

Sure, there have been some real conspiracies and still are - but NOT of the idiotic, brainless type that have been talked about in this (and other) threads).

Because the average person is brainwashed and narrow-minded, and in denial about it.Given your profound ignorance about what constitutes a scientific theory, the scientific method and even basic logical reasoning I find that comment of yours amazingly stupid.

You clearly think you've somehow seen through 'the lies', that you've got some grasp others haven't. It's been shown in studies that those most likely to over estimate their abilities are generally the most ignorant. You've shown you couldn't even grasp how to string together a reasoned argument, yet you believe yourself somehow more insightful or clear headed than the majority of 'sheeple'?

As for things beyond human comprehension, there's plenty of things beyond your comprehension in regards to reason and logic, a significant chunk of which is expected of high school students.

Read-Only and AlphaNumeric,

Your defensive stance against my post hints at some significant anger in you, directed towards me. Anger clouds judgment, and is also indicative of an irrational mind- the same irrational, emotional mind that might be easily brainwashed.

Why should there be any emotion involved in exploring the subject at hand? There's zero hatred on my side. How about yours?

Stop feeding the Troll.

Your defensive stance against my post hints at some significant anger in you, directed towards me.Yes, but its not at you for what you say but how you behave. I intensely dislike intellectual laziness and dishonesty in people and you're displaying both. Hence it isn't a personal thing specific to what you say, its more your general attitude.


Anger clouds judgment, and is also indicative of an irrational mind- the same irrational, emotional mind that might be easily brainwashed.Irrational is asking people to back up their claims? I asked you to justify your claims about your work because to blindly accept your claims without evidence would be stupid.

You complain about others being easily led and brainwashed but when someone asks you to back up your huge claims suddenly you want it the other way. :shrug: It's always the same with cranks, they want people to stop blindly following others and to start blindly following them.


Why should there be any emotion involved in exploring the subject at hand? There's zero hatred on my side. How about yours?'Hatred' is the wrong word. I find intellectual dishonesty contemptible and even in those showing it my attitude is aimed not at them for who they are but their attitude towards things. I might agree with someone on a view but if they are very intellectually lazy I'll still find that an unpleasant thing about them.

When you or the original poster can come up with anything more than "Because I say so" for any of your claims then I'll listen. Until then to take you seriously would be blindly following you, which is precisely what you say people shouldn't do.

To the OP:
The average person should not unquestioningly believe the mainstream wisdom.

But they shouldn't believe your version either.

To he end of clarity in future debates on sciforums I hereby propose Chimpkin's Razor:

"Highly unlikely claims of grand conspiracies must provide multiple credible sources of documentation to be considered more than the maunderings of an excessively credulous person."

420Joey:


Kelish you know why it's a waste of time?

Basically this is how these types work. They reject everything that doesent conform to there belief system.

How did they get their belief system in the first place?


In order words, they dont believe in anything that doesent have emperical testability thus we can say "God could exist based on .." or "Power groups can exist based on... " and they can say "Its not proven" even though we are following a line of logic that is sequenced together and is based on common sense and proof.

Common sense and proof (evidence) are two quite different things, sometimes. A lot of things that were once "common sense" are now known to be utterly wrong. You should use leeches to suck out the bad blood when you're ill, right? The world is flat, right? Things fall downwards because being on the ground is their natural state, right? God must exist because he wrote the bible and the bible says he exists, right?


Now unless it blatant; the masses will refute it ; than when its common knowledge the aptitute of thinking turns into "nothing lost, nothing gained" and than eventually turn into "meh"
and unless they see a direct link implicating a group screaming there trying to take over the world or proof of god reigning from above they will continue stating the burden of proof is on you evading thought provoking discussion because weve been so used to just having things get figured out for us instead of doing it ourselves.

If you think there really is a group who is trying to take over the world (or perhaps already controls the world), then you need a better argument than "I don't like Mormons. They are trying to take over the world." or whatever. You need to show at least some evidence other than your gut feeling that actually supports your claim.


even though you have evidence and your logic is deducted and based on sense and evidence unless its the physical kind of evidence being revealed directly implicating the illuminati, god, or some other secret or supernatural thing that cannot be refuted in any way, youll be called a crank.

What other kinds of evidence do you rely upon, other than the physical kind? What makes your non-physical kind of evidence superior, exactly?

I know alot of people that consider FOX News a credible source.

I liked reading this thread. The fact that it was moderated to the "Pseudoscience" sub-forum, does a lot to support the contention of the following opinion.


Because the average person is brainwashed and narrow-minded, and in denial about it.

Whether or not certain conspiracies are true, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that a person of authority getting away with a conspiracy would be easy enough, since people are pre-conditioned to believe that conspiracies are beyond human capability. Unless of course it's written in a history book... then the average fool has no problem believing that such a conspiracy took place- in the less-civilized past. But believing in present-day conspiracy activates some sort of mental block for most people.

Unless some authority is quoted as saying so? This point of view is, well. . . considered "pseudoscience," bunk, hogwash, and not worthy of further discussion. Yet, it is exactly as the situation stands today.
How public education cripples our kids, and why. (http://www.cantrip.org/againstschool.html)

I liked reading this thread. The fact that it was moderated to the "Pseudoscience" sub-forum, does a lot to support the contention of the following opinion.



Unless some authority is quoted as saying so? This point of view is, well. . . considered "pseudoscience," bunk, hogwash, and not worthy of further discussion. Yet, it is exactly as the situation stands today.
How public education cripples our kids, and why. (http://www.cantrip.org/againstschool.html)

That's a nice piece of fiction the guy has written. And I feel sure he has convinced himself that it's all true.

I'd have little trouble buying into it IF it wasn't for one HUGE, GLARING logical error it contains: That the very people who are supposed to be taking advantage of the population dumbed-down by the educational system were not THEMSELVES a product of it!!!

Just another example of someone who *supposes* himself to be highly intelligent - yet cannot see the forest for the trees. :shrug:

I'd have little trouble buying into it IF it wasn't for one HUGE, GLARING logical error it contains: That the very people who are supposed to be taking advantage of the population dumbed-down by the educational system were not THEMSELVES a product of it!!!

You are incorrect. The makers of modern compulsory schooling were not in fact the product of self same system. Sorry, try again.

Horace Mann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Mann)
Education


Horace Mann was born on May 4, 1796,[3] in Franklin, Massachusetts. His father was a Yankee farmer without money. The son's frugal upbringing taught him habits of self-reliance and independence. From ten years of age to twenty he had never more than six weeks' schooling during any year.[4] He made use of the town library, founded by Benjamin Franklin. At the age of 20 he enrolled at Brown University, and graduated after three years[5] as valedictorian of his class in 1819. The theme of his oration was “The Progressive Character of the Human Race.”[4] He then studied law for a short time at Wrentham, Massachusetts; was a tutor of Latin and Greek (1820–1822) and a librarian (1821–1823) at Brown University. He also studied during 1821–1823 at Litchfield Law School (the law school conducted by Judge Tapping Reeve in Litchfield, Connecticut), and in 1823, was admitted to the bar in Norfolk, Massachusetts.


Frederick Winslow Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_W._Taylor)


Taylor was born in 1856 to a wealthy Quaker family in Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Taylor's ancestor, Samuel Taylor, settled in Burlington, New Jersey, in 1677. Taylor's father, Franklin Taylor, a Princeton-educated lawyer, built his wealth on mortgages.[3] Taylor's mother, Emily Annette Taylor (née Winslow), was an ardent abolitionist and a coworker with Lucretia Mott. Educated early by his mother, Taylor studied for two years in France and Germany and traveled Europe for 18 months.[4] In 1872, he entered Phillips Exeter Academy in Exeter, New Hampshire.

The industrialists that were influenced by these men were all educated before compulsory schooling was instituted.

You need a history lesson, obviously. Come back and discuss things when you have an education.
The Makers of Modern Schooling (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm)

The elites of the country have. . . for generations, educated their children in private schools, knowing precisely what true reasons for compulsory schooling are. Their children still know how to reason, question, and think. And when they mature? They don't have the problems, the disconnect with reality, and the dim wits that the OP alluded to.

By definition...


The average person

..is the mainstream.

Happy to clear that up for you...

Because it works.

The elites of the country have. . . for generations, educated their children in private schools, knowing precisely what true reasons for compulsory schooling are. Their children still know how to reason, question, and think. And when they mature? They don't have the problems, the disconnect with reality, and the dim wits that the OP alluded to.

I agree that the education system leaves a lot to be desired. But you seem to imply that it's deliberately designed to be substandard?

"...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent." (Goethe, from Wikipedia Hanlon's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor#Origins_and_similar_quotations))

There are many well-educated people who would like to reform the education system to allow many more to be well-educated. I suspect that education reform is ironically prevented indirectly by the poorly educated masses, who maintain the short term popularity based governance that is required to pander to media-driven short term demands. The sensationalist, short-term focus of the media is in turn sustained by the same education deficient short term demands of the populace.

A most beautiful* stable system, strongly controlled by its own feedback.

(* "Beautiful" only from a systems control perspective.)

I agree that the education system leaves a lot to be desired. But you seem to imply that it's deliberately designed to be substandard?
I'm not implying anything, I am outright stating it as a documented fact. If you had bothered to read any of the posted facts I have included with my previous posts, you would have seen that the industrial system has been manipulated so that human capital would be standardized in a systematic fashion for the entrepreneurial classes. This was done so that when governing a representative democracy where the lower classes and women were all enfranchised, government schools, and corporate owned media would effectively control their thinking and program them in how they would vote. This is the only means by how the upper classes and the elites could control the body politic. If you aren't going to read the sources I post, or supply your own counter evidence, than it is a pointless debate.



"...misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent." (Goethe, from Wikipedia Hanlon's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor#Origins_and_similar_quotations))
This quote, though misquoted, and restated by many others, is always in reference to interpersonal relationships. It is when your mother, your brother, or your lover ascribes malicious intentions to your actions, when really, we are all just thoughtless selfish creatures. It has nothing to do with the affairs of state or corporate governance. On balance, in regard to most people, most of the time, I guess I could agree with this quote in that context, sure. :cool:

Clearly you're right, and I should accept the authorities you quote without question. The well educated people who campaign for educational reform don't exist.
:rolleyes:


This quote, though misquoted, and restated by many others, is always in reference to interpersonal relationships
Except when it's not.


Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.
—Sir Bernard Ingham

Yeah, an elitist's take on journalists exposing whistle blowers among the elites? REAL substantial quote. Mmm hmmm. . . . Sorry if I don't find Margaret Thatcher's Chief Press Secretary's opinions on this issue all that compelling. In reality, us common folk down in the trenches call them propaganda ministers.

Because it works.
Like AlexG said, it works.

At times, you guys can be such little snobs. Do you really think your snide remarks are inspirational? Try to think about how little you knew at one time and how you would have responded to being called an idiot. If you guys truly know, as much as you portray, then you know how much time it takes to learn some of this stuff.

We are human and our senses can produce false interpretations. Our data-taking mechanisms fall short. Science is the only method that we have, which can reduce our self-deluded sense of reality. It’s not perfect but it’s the best tool we have.

Yeah, an elitist's take on journalists exposing whistle blowers among the elites? REAL substantial quote. Mmm hmmm. . . . Sorry if I don't find Margaret Thatcher's Chief Press Secretary's opinions on this issue all that compelling. In reality, us common folk down in the trenches call them propaganda ministers.

I'm not asking you believe him. I'm giving you an example of the use of the phrase in a context you denied.

Fair enough.

The question is, why should the average person believe the mainstream.

Ockham's Razor is usually a good reason to accept something as true, at least until new evidence comes in. It's also a good reason to dismiss most conspiracy theories, that and Henlon's Razor.