Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Intellectual honesty / dishonesty

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,957

    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. (Emphasis added)
    Implying that invoking God is the same as invoking 'magic' or 'mystic powers' because it eludes human comprehension is . . . . false. Just as believing that I actually have mystic power because my youngest grandson cannot comprehend how I 'pull a coin out of his ear'. God doesn't use 'magic', it is just a matter that you cannot comprehend the actual power that is 'in play'. Just because you cannot understand how it is done, does not make it 'magical' or false. It just shows that you do not have the capacity, as a man, to understand how God is able to do that which, to you, seems magical.

    Have a good day!
    Still small

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marrero, Louisiana
    Posts
    8,215
    Blog Entries
    3

    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.


    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
    WHhaaaa !! Insult my integrity ?..............m
    " Aye Christian,,,know ye not that the one whom thou contendest against is none more than a reprobate ! " William Gurnell

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewDuvall View Post
    WHhaaaa !! Insult my integrity ?..............m

    I am confident you can continue to manage that far beyond my small powers to add or subtract.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Implying that invoking God is the same as invoking 'magic' or 'mystic powers' because it eludes human comprehension is . . . . false. Just as believing that I actually have mystic power because my youngest grandson cannot comprehend how I 'pull a coin out of his ear'. God doesn't use 'magic', it is just a matter that you cannot comprehend the actual power that is 'in play'. Just because you cannot understand how it is done, does not make it 'magical' or false. It just shows that you do not have the capacity, as a man, to understand how God is able to do that which, to you, seems magical.

    Have a good day!
    Still small
    It was not until Issac Newton that any real start was made on
    separating magic from materialistic causes.

    An intellectually honest comment from you would not include the
    "just because", nor the "it just shows". Nor the assertion of "false"
    supported only by irrelevant / strawman comparisons.

    See if you can work out why.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Implying that invoking God is the same as invoking 'magic' or 'mystic powers' because it eludes human comprehension is . . . . false.
    So God's powers are not mystical?
    They can be investigated in the same way as your producing a coin from the back of your ear can be investigated ....is that what you are saying?

    So what apparatus have you designed which will enable anyone at all to do that?

    you do not have the capacity, as a man, to understand how God is able to do that which, to you, seems magical.
    So how is that different from my statement that God's powers "defy analysis, elude human comprehension, have no boundaries and their operation is unpredictable"?

    If you are saying that ascribing completely incomprehensible phenomena to God removes them from the realm of magic then you need to tell us why - and without resorting to self-validating assertion, which I know as circular reasoning viz. God is a mystery therefore his acts are mysterious; God's acts are mysterious because God is a mystery.
    "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."Karl K. Popper

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    So God's powers are not mystical?
    They can be investigated in the same way as your producing a coin from the back of your ear can be investigated ....is that what you are saying?

    So what apparatus have you designed which will enable anyone at all to do that?

    So how is that different from my statement that God's powers "defy analysis, elude human comprehension, have no boundaries and their operation is unpredictable"?

    If you are saying that ascribing completely incomprehensible phenomena to God removes them from the realm of magic then you need to tell us why - and without resorting to self-validating assertion, which I know as circular reasoning viz. God is a mystery therefore his acts are mysterious; God's acts are mysterious because God is a mystery.
    IF there is a god, as is assumed and asserted by ss, then, his doings
    are not magic..depending on how it is defined.

    To those of us who do not buy that assumption, nor any of the other
    assumptions about the existence, powers and role of the myriad other
    gods and spirits than anyone ever concocted.. well, it is just magic they are talking about.

    i dont think any of them can demonstrate that they are not talking about
    magic, other, that is, than with word games.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    9,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    It was not until Issac Newton that any real start was made on
    separating magic from materialistic causes.
    Newton merely confirmed the Biblical order in creation on which all science is based.

    Without God's creation's order, there would be no science.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    9,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    So what definition of authority do you accept?
    The Word of God Written--Scripture (2Ti 3:16) and the Word of God Incarnate--Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1:1, 14).

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smoky View Post
    Newton merely confirmed the Biblical order in creation on which all science is based.

    Without God's creation's order, there would be no science.
    What you mean to say is that there would be no science if nature did not operate in a consistent/repeatable and patterned way. Those physical processes describe nature's order. There is no 'Biblical order.'
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can also make you commit atrocities

    - Voltaire

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smoky View Post
    Newton merely confirmed the Biblical order in creation on which all science is based.

    Without God's creation's order, there would be no science.
    You have no idea what I was talking about.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •