| Revision as of 00:34, 16 July 2008 editFrankTobia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,318 edits format additional reference and remove unreferenced tag← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:36, 16 July 2008 edit undoFrankTobia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,318 edits →See also: prune listNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ** ] | ** ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| ==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
Revision as of 00:36, 16 July 2008
Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes 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.
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. |