Generalities: The Accepting Many vs. The Questioning One

One idea that struck me as I was reading Richards and Ogden, was the idea of generally accepted knowledge.  Richards and Ogden state, "Every great advance in physics has been at the expense of some generally accepted piece of metaphysical explanation which had enshrined itself in a convenient, universally practised, symbolic shorthand.  But the confusion and obstruction due to such shorthand expressions and to the naive theories they protect and keep alive, is greater in psychology, and especially in the theory of knowledge, than elsewhere" (1276).  It seems absolutely true that there are generally accepted ideas or symbols that are used as common reference points in order to advance one's communication abilities.  Then, it seems through this quoted text, that these reference points can also obstruct us from advancing in communication, because we are just accepting and not questioning.  So, which is it?

It's probably good to use both, since thinking of the two options in their extremes sounds....well, extreme!  If I were to accept knowledge at face value all the time, then I wouldn't be able to advance language or communication.  Language evolves, and how can it evolve if everyone at all times were to just accept symbols with a general common definition?  We wouldn't be able to even put our personal twist on language.  On the other hand, language needs some general acceptance in order for a more efficient communication.

To go to the other extreme, if we questioned everything allt he time then we'd be one confused and paranoid society.  We'd be out for ourselves and conversations would be selfish instead of give and take.  On the other hand, language needs to be questioned.  We need to question general knowledge in order to make sure that it still stands with an ever changing society.

I don't know how many times generally accepted knowledge has helped me and frustrated me.  It's frustrating when something doesn't make sense (like right now I don't think my pay at work makes sense) and I question it and the response is "it just is, so accept it and move on".  How can something just be?  Why can't we look into it further?  However, I've been on the other end of that conversation.  Sometimes I work at a bar where we use a jigger to measure each shot and that is all we can put in one drink.  When people ask for doubles, I say no I'm sorry that is just the rule and it is a generally accepted rule so you must accept it and move on.  (I say it a lot nicer of course).  There is an explanation, but it will take forever to explain so sometimes generally accepted knowledge is a blanket to cover the more complicated meaning behind it.

Generally accepted knowledge seems to both hinder and aid.  I'm still not sure which it does more of.  Does generally accepting knowledge hold us back or is it used to advance our conversations?  Does questioning knowledge all the time help advance language or does it hinder our experience in a conversation?