| Revision as of 20:43, 2 January 2007 editSon of Somebody (talk | contribs)1,345 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:45, 12 January 2007 edit undoSon of Somebody (talk | contribs)1,345 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''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 ]. | '''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''" |
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 == | == See also == | ||
Revision as of 12:45, 12 January 2007
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. 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 the conclusion it portends, yet holds a contradictory view, it is 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. It is an obfuscatory 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 morality or policy. In such cases, the speaker is (perhaps unwittingly, and always ironically) guilty of both intellectual dishonesty and ignorance, because he or she has mistaken opinions for verifiable facts.
See also
- In specific fields:
- Anti-intellectualism
- Epistemic virtue
- Ethics
- Honesty
- Plagiarism
- Pseudoskepticism
- Rigour
- Scientific skepticism
- Scientism
- Self-deception
- Truthiness
 | This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |