| Revision as of 12:22, 9 February 2007 editSon of Somebody (talk | contribs)1,345 editsm →See also: revised redundancy← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:05, 26 December 2011 edit undoViriditas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers169,230 edits Redirect to sourced article | ||
| (66 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #redirect ] | |||
| {{Unreferenced|date=January 2007}} | |||
| '''Intellectual dishonesty''' is the advocacy of a position known to be false. ] is used to advance an ] or to reinforce one's deeply held ]s in the face of overwhelming contrary ]. If a person is aware of the evidence and the conclusion it portends, yet holds a contradictory view, it is intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ], even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. | |||
| The terms ''intellectually dishonest'' and ''intellectual dishonesty'' are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an ] way to say "''you're lying''" or "''you're stupid''", and has a cooling effect on conversations similar to accusations of ignorance. | |||
| The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audient reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as ] or ]. In such cases, the speaker is (perhaps unwittingly, and always ]) guilty of both intellectual dishonesty ''and'' ignorance, because he or she has mistaken opinions for verifiable facts. | |||
| == See also == | |||
| * In specific fields: | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| ** ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| {{philo-stub}} | |||
Latest revision as of 00:05, 26 December 2011
Redirect to: