| Revision as of 00:36, 16 July 2008 editFrankTobia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,318 edits →See also: prune list← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:45, 19 August 2008 edit undo12.27.22.76 (talk) Added: intellectual dishonesty can be advocating of a position not known to be true, & failure to perform rigorous due diligence to check truthfulness - acting as though the position were true.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Intellectual dishonesty''' is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false. ] is 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. | '''Intellectual dishonesty''' is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false, or is the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. ] is 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. | ||
| 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 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. | ||
Revision as of 17:45, 19 August 2008
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false, or is the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. 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 ignorance, 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.
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 morality or policy.
See also
- In specific fields:
- Anti-intellectualism
- Ethics
- Self-deception
Footnotes
- "Intellectual dishonesty (in philosophy)". Enlexica, Inc. 2008-07-01. Retrieved 2008-07-16.
References
- Colin McNickle, More intellectual dishonesty on guns, December 15, 2002, The Pittsburg Tribune Review,
- Editorial, Intellectual dishonesty, Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2006,
 | This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |