Intellectual dishonesty - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Son of Somebody (talk | contribs) at 22:25, 10 February 2008 (removed politically motivated links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:25, 10 February 2008 by Son of Somebody (talk | contribs) (removed politically motivated links)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

An editor has nominated this article for deletion.
You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it.Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed. For more information, see the guide to deletion.
Find sources: "Intellectual dishonesty" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FIntellectual+dishonesty%5D%5DAFD

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 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. 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 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