| Revision as of 11:50, 6 January 2008 editRtc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,598 editsm Newton's theory is false, too, yet can be of great value in many places← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:26, 15 January 2008 edit undoJimmythatdawg (talk | contribs)7 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| '''Intellectual dishonesty''' is the deceitful 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 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 deceitful 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 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. It is an ] way to say "''you're lying''" or "''you're |
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 a total cocksucker, Mason.''", 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 ]. | 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 ]. | ||
Revision as of 00:26, 15 January 2008
 | This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Intellectual dishonesty" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Intellectual dishonesty is the deceitful 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 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. It is an obfuscatory way to say "you're lying" or "you're a total cocksucker, Mason.", 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.
See also
- In specific fields:
- Anti-intellectualism
- Epistemic virtue
- Ethics
- Honesty
- Dishonesty
- Plagiarism
- Pseudoskepticism
- Rigour
- Scientific skepticism
- Scientism
- Self-deception
- Truthiness
 | This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |