Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Intellectual honesty / dishonesty

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,956
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default Intellectual honesty / dishonesty

    Some thoughts..

    http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty

    Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc.


    Intellectual honesty...

    https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2...ual-honesty-2/

    1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

    2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.


    3. . Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

    4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

    5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

    6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

    7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

    8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

    9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

    10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

    While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

    -Mike Gene
    Last edited by Taikoo; 05-15-2017 at 06:45 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    8,885
    Thanks
    2,221
    Thanked 1,261 Times in 1,053 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Some thoughts..

    http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty

    Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc.
    Assumes human reason and empirical evidence as the authority.

    Intellectual honesty...

    https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2...ual-honesty-2/

    1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

    2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.
    But it can be the case. . .and my case may be the one, if you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

    3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

    4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

    5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

    6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

    7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

    8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

    9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.

    10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

    While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

    -Mike Gene
    Last edited by smoky; 05-15-2017 at 10:06 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,956
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=smoky;1324627]
    Assumes human reason and empirical evidence as the authority.
    You prefer magic?

    But it can be the case. . .and my case may be the one, if you cannot demonstrate otherwise.
    Absolutely! Likewise, it can, of needs must be, the case that I have
    an alien spaceport in my third molar.

    I posted this about intellectual honesty with the thought in mind that some among us, myself included would look at what it says, and perhaps reflect on their own actions. I see a gotcha or two there for me there's plenty more to go around.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Taikoo For This Useful Post:

    Stephen T-B (05-15-2017)

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    8,885
    Thanks
    2,221
    Thanked 1,261 Times in 1,053 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by smoky View Post
    Assumes human reason and empirical evidence as the authority.
    You prefer magic?
    No more than you do. . .

    But it can be the case. . .and my case may be the one, if you cannot demonstrate otherwise.
    Absolutely! Likewise, it can, of needs must be, the case that
    I have an alien spaceport in my third molar.
    Easily demonstrated otherwise. . .sorry, your case is not the one.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,956
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smoky View Post
    No more than you do. . .


    Easily demonstrated otherwise. . .sorry, your case is not the one.
    Let us know your general technique for proving a negative.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    8,885
    Thanks
    2,221
    Thanked 1,261 Times in 1,053 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Let us know your general technique for proving a negative.
    Opening your mouth, testing your claim regarding your molar.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,789
    Thanks
    2,530
    Thanked 1,526 Times in 1,176 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smoky View Post
    No more than you do. . .
    "Magic", apart from being what magicians practise, is anything which - because it seems to be inexplicable - assumes the agency of mystical powers.
    And "mystical powers" are, by definition, mystical.
    They defy analysis, elude human comprehension, have no boundaries and their operation is unpredictable.

    Easily demonstrated otherwise. . .sorry, your case is not the one.
    A microscopic examination of her teeth might fail to show she does have an alien spaceport in her third molar, but that assumes an alien spaceport is susceptible to such an investigative technique, and being alien, it might not be.
    But smoky, you'd have difficulty demonstrating it's not the case that Taikoo was abducted by aliens last night and whizzed to their distant spaceship for a non-invasive examination of her digestive system and then returned to her bed which, during her absence, had been occupied by one of the aliens who'd shape shifted so as to adopt her physical appearance.
    Last edited by Stephen T-B; 05-15-2017 at 12:10 PM.
    Never underestimate the power of unreason to overwhelm reason

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,789
    Thanks
    2,530
    Thanked 1,526 Times in 1,176 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

    -Mike Gene[/I]
    So I'd change that to: "whether you can trust the integrity of another."


    That trust would come from a consistent demonstration of:
    a willingness to admit error;
    rigour in the accurate presentation of other people's arguments/statements and of thoroughly-tested factual information;
    an open-minded desire to find out what's going on in the world around us.

    My view is that the great advances in human knowledge have been made by men and women of integrity, and that that integrity is not seen in the attempts of theocratic dogmatists to discredit or misrepresent those advances.
    Never underestimate the power of unreason to overwhelm reason

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    8,885
    Thanks
    2,221
    Thanked 1,261 Times in 1,053 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    "Magic", apart from being what magicians practise, is anything which - because it seems to be inexplicable - assumes the agency of mystical powers.
    And "mystical powers" are, by definition, mystical.
    They defy analysis, elude human comprehension, have no boundaries and their operation is unpredictable.
    Not the definition of what I accept as authority.

    A microscopic examination of her teeth might fail to show she does have an alien spaceport in her third molar, but that assumes an alien spaceport is susceptible to such an investigative technique, and being alien, it might not be.
    But smoky, you'd have difficulty demonstrating it's not the case that Taikoo was abducted by aliens last night and whizzed to their distant spaceship for a non-invasive examination of her digestive system and then returned to her bed which, during her absence, had been occupied by one of the aliens who'd shape shifted so as to adopt her physical appearance.
    And? . .why do I need to do so?. . .what skin do I have in that game?
    Last edited by smoky; 05-15-2017 at 03:23 PM.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    6,789
    Thanks
    2,530
    Thanked 1,526 Times in 1,176 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smoky View Post
    Not the definition of what I accept as authority.
    So what definition of authority do you accept?

    And? . .why do I need to do so?. . .what skin do I have in that game?
    ???
    Never underestimate the power of unreason to overwhelm reason

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •