Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Son of Somebody (talk | contribs) at 12:49, 24 February 2008 (Undid revision 192672188 by Sunburnhooker007 (talk), confusing content with a sig.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• In specific fields:
  • Academic dishonesty
  • Journalism scandals
  • Scientific misconduct
• Anti-intellectualism
• Epistemic virtue
• Ethics
• Honesty
• Dishonesty
• Plagiarism
• Pseudoskepticism
• Rigour
• Scientific skepticism
• Scientism
• Self-deception
• Truthiness

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.

• v
• t
• e

• Deception
• Scandals
• Philosophy stubs