Intellectual Honesty

[Danmark]

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude....
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."
Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty.
_ Wikipedia
The question for debate, is not whether intellectual honesty is the proper attitude for debate [I assume everyone agrees, but if there is opposition to this view it would be interesting to hear it], but for routine examples of the kinds of arguments on this forum that violate the principle of intellectual honesty.

[Danmark]

The classic case that I see too often in debates here, is when a debater uses science or history or any other discipline to support their arguments, unless and until the same science or other discipline disagrees with their point of view.

I am not talking about the case where there is a legitimate dispute between qualified scientists, for example. I am talking about the case where the scientific consensus is overwhelming, and suddenly the 'science advocate,' tho' not a scientist himself, decides the science is just 'wrong' because it comes to conclusions he that offend his personal beliefs.

[David Henson]

The classic case that I see too often in debates here, is when a debater uses science or history or any other discipline to support their arguments, unless and until the same science or other discipline disagrees with their point of view.

I am not talking about the case where there is a legitimate dispute between qualified scientists, for example. I am talking about the case where the scientific consensus is overwhelming, and suddenly the 'science advocate,' tho' not a scientist himself, decides the science is just 'wrong' because it comes to conclusions he that offend his personal beliefs.

I've employed tactics like that, and I think they are totally acceptable. Not intellectually dishonest at all. For example, I don't have any interest in science. Never have had, not even during 27 years as an atheist. But if I'm debating or even discussing a subject which science agrees with me and this discussion or debate is with people who do respect science I will throw in the information for their consideration.

99% of modern day Christian teachings and beliefs are more influenced by pagan mythology and Greek philosophy, but if I'm debating the cross from Constantine, hell from Dante and Milton, the trinity from Plato, the immortal soul from Socrates, Easter from Astarte, or Christmas from Dickens and the winter solstice with traditional Christians, I will supply references from sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia to support my position.

[Danmark]

The classic case that I see too often in debates here, is when a debater uses science or history or any other discipline to support their arguments, unless and until the same science or other discipline disagrees with their point of view.

I am not talking about the case where there is a legitimate dispute between qualified scientists, for example. I am talking about the case where the scientific consensus is overwhelming, and suddenly the 'science advocate,' tho' not a scientist himself, decides the science is just 'wrong' because it comes to conclusions he that offend his personal beliefs.

I've employed tactics like that, and I think they are totally acceptable. Not intellectually dishonest at all. For example, I don't have any interest in science. Never have had, not even during 27 years as an atheist. But if I'm debating or even discussing a subject which science agrees with me and this discussion or debate is with people who do respect science I will throw in the information for their consideration.

99% of modern day Christian teachings and beliefs are more influenced by pagan mythology and Greek philosophy, but if I'm debating the cross from Constantine, hell from Dante and Milton, the trinity from Plato, the immortal soul from Socrates, Easter from Astarte, or Christmas from Dickens and the winter solstice with traditional Christians, I will supply references from sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia to support my position.

Thanks. I think you've made an important distinction. I don't think it intellectually dishonest to use another's source material against them, even if you don't agree with the source.

What I'm talking about, I think, is different: the sincere belief in the use of an academic discipline, EXCEPT when it tends to disprove one's 'Sacred Cow.'

[dianaiad]

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude....
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."
Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty.
_ Wikipedia
The question for debate, is not whether intellectual honesty is the proper attitude for debate [I assume everyone agrees, but if there is opposition to this view it would be interesting to hear it], but for routine examples of the kinds of arguments on this forum that violate the principle of intellectual honesty.

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

[Jax Agnesson]

One of the exasperating things about these internet forums is that, if ever you get an opponent really on the ropes, they just stop responding on that thread, and it very soon disappears down the 'active topics' list, (or equivalent).
i suppose that's a kind of intellectual cowardice, rather than dishonesty as such. It is a case of the 'loser' being internally dishonest, rather than accepting that someone has presented a new argument for them to engage with.

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to General Chat.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[Goat]

One of the exasperating things about these internet forums is that, if ever you get an opponent really on the ropes, they just stop responding on that thread, and it very soon disappears down the 'active topics' list, (or equivalent).
i suppose that's a kind of intellectual cowardice, rather than dishonesty as such. It is a case of the 'loser' being internally dishonest, rather than accepting that someone has presented a new argument for them to engage with.

There is also the technique of proclaiming you just proved the exact opposite, when you have gone to great lengths to explain your position. Usually, it's a one line piece of snark, that shows you have not gotten through to them at all, and they have not even read ANY of your arguments.

That also goes around with actively misrepresenting the opponents position, and building up a straw man to attack. One common subject is the whole 'Objective moral' and 'if you don't have god, you can't be moral' line of argument.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 8 by Goat]

Yes, that one [no God, no morality] still comes up, usually by newer members. The argument has been so thoroughly shattered by the animal studies. Like Jax says, when you show them those cites, they generally just drop it, or their argument peters out to a kind of "Well . . . yes, butt . . . ."

[Goat]

[Replying to post 8 by Goat]

Yes, that one [no God, no morality] still comes up, usually by newer members. The argument has been so thoroughly shattered by the animal studies. Like Jax says, when you show them those cites, they generally just drop it, or their argument peters out to a kind of "Well . . . yes, butt . . . ."

There are exceptions. I see people who have been around for a few years still use it.. and the subject peters out when you point that out, but then, a few months later, they bring it up again, just as if the previous 20 conversations never happened.