| Revision as of 12:04, 18 March 2010 editTisane (talk | contribs)6,391 edits →Other: * Intellectual cover. By the way, are these columns really necessary?← 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 | ||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #redirect ] | ||
| {{Expand|date=January 2010}} | |||
| {{Refimprove|date=January 2010}} | |||
| {{TOC right}} | |||
| '''Intellectual dishonesty''' is ] in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are: | |||
| * the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading | |||
| * the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context. | |||
| ] may be used to advance an ] or to reinforce one's deeply held ]s in the face of overwhelming contrary ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.123exp-beliefs.com/t/00804199459/|title=Intellectual dishonesty (in philosophy)|date=2008-07-01|publisher=Enlexica, Inc.|accessdate=2008-07-16}}</ref> If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ], even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty. | |||
| 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. | |||
| The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience 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 ]. | |||
| == See also == | |||
| {{Col-begin}} | |||
| {{Col-1-of-2}} | |||
| === In specific fields === | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| {{Col-2-of-2}} | |||
| === Other === | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| {{col-end}} | |||
| ==Footnotes== | |||
| <references/> | |||
| ==References== | |||
| *Colin McNickle, , December 15, 2002, The Pittsburg Tribune Review | |||
| *Editorial, , Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2006 | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| {{philo-stub}} | |||
Latest revision as of 00:05, 26 December 2011
Redirect to: