Talk:Intellectual dishonesty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 10, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Yep ! A quite valid and timely page necessary to remind one and all of their true sources of information. Norwikian 09:21, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I hope we can keep this a revealing analysis of how intellectual dishonesty works, and not let it degenerate into a mere Slam List! Wetman 09:24, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You write: "whether the intention to deceive the reader can be proved or not is immaterial." An error cannot be classed as "intellectual dishonesty" unless an intent to deceive can be established. This should be more clearly expressed. Adam 10:38, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We know from the judicial system how difficult it is to prove intent. Intellectual dishonesty is not the same as fraud. If I justify my actions to myself, based on a quibble, I am being intellectually dishonest. What though if I set up an impossible criterion for judging intellectual dihonesty, with the thought that I could later disallow any example that did not appeal to me? Wouldn't that be intellectual dishonesty? Wetman 12:39, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One of the principles of the judicial system is "innocent until proven guilty." Intellectual dishonesty, applied to the fields of acdemic or intellectual production, is not a quibble, it is a serious accusation, which if proved can end a person's career. It must be proved, and the fact that it is difficult to prove it doesn't mean that the standard of proof can be lowered. Intent must be shown, and if it can't then the person can be convicted only of error or perhaps carelessness, but not dishonesty.

Caveat lector. So much for that... Wetman 15:18, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

removed reference to missing examples --Evan 22:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) The examples that follow will doubtless elicit a thrill of schadenfreude, but they are not intended as a mere Wall of Shame. Simply to label as intellectually dishonest any biased expression with which we do not agree is not sufficient (and should result in speedy removal from this set of examples). But to dispassionately analyze the self-deceptions or hidden agendas, the spurious justifications for fraud, and the rhetorical devices through which intellectual dishonesty is expressed, is a wholesome exercise, both for Wikipedians and Wikipedia readers.

I always thought that intellectual dishonesty could also be unintentional (due to self deception) and does not necessarily have to be conscious deception. Andries 08:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Intellectually dishonest use of the term 'intellectual dishonesty 2 Unintentional intellectual dishonesty 3 Call for References 4 About the definition 5 Content-free page 6 Intellectual dishonesty: pretense to rigor 7 This article *needs* some sources 8 This article is not only unsupported, it is wrong 9 Intellectual integrity 10 Still no refs

[edit] Intellectually dishonest use of the term 'intellectual dishonesty

I believe false accusations of intellectual dishonesty are quite common on Wikipedia. It's often used as a convenient way to suppress opposing viewpoints by avoiding the substance of the argument. Too often, accusations of "intellectual dishonesty" amount to nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual way of saying "I know what you're really thinking, and it's wrong." It's even more ludicrous when it's claimed to be unintentional. I'm not disputing that true instances of intellectual dishonesty occur here, just that the term itself is often applied dishonestly. The Hokkaido Crow 03:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unintentional intellectual dishonesty

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Intellectual dishonesty may occur consciously or unconsciously. An individual may unintentionally plagiarize a work from memory (cryptomnesia), fail to examine supporting evidence with sufficient rigor, or fall prey to cognitive bias.

A secondary motive does not automatically imply intellectual dishonesty; however, concealment or unawareness of one's biases may signal a tendency toward other forms of dishonesty. Thus, any sign of an external agenda is cause for closer inspection of a work's supporting arguments and evidence.

In my opinion, dishonesty is never unintentional. But this article isn't really supposed to be about the argument over semantics. It should focus less on what the term means, and tell us more about instances, mechanisms, standards, and opinions having to do with intellectual dishonesty. -- Beland 23:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Call for References

If it is indeed intellectually dishonest not to have references for the intellectual dishonesty page, we can't prove it by using the definition found on this page. Yet. (<-"humor")--Son of Somebody 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the definition

The article begins with

Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false.

Isn't it a bit restrictive? The word honesty has a wide and complex meaning and I think also the intellectual one must be much more complex then just "not advocating known falsehoods". For example: if in a discussion I make an objection that is apparently relevant but in fact it is not I am being intellectually dishonest without saying any falsehood. Or I can be dishonest if I advocate a true position but I make use of an argument that I know to be invalid (even if the conclusion is valid). I think there are a lot of other subtle ways to be intellectually dishonest.--Pokipsy76 11:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to address & correct as you see fit. I've always believed the term is more an ad hominem distraction than a valid descriptor. Googling "intellectual dishonesty", many hits are devoted to political rants, and a cursory reading of a few of those rants exposes the term's users as lazy debaters--the term is an end in itself. "My position is the right one, your disagreement reeks of intellectual dishonesty (and that's that)". Unless someone can divorce the term from its valid use, a synonym for "plagiarism", I'd be willing to put the whole thing up for deletion.--Son of Somebody 13:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he term may be a valid descriptor as far as the term "honest" is one. "Intellectual honesty" is honesty applied to intellectual activities like discussing, believing, proving, making deductions etc... It would not be surprising to find out that intellectual dishonesty is common between politicians!--Pokipsy76 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Researching this term, its prevalent use is as rhetorical invective used in political discussions. At best, it's used in place of "uses faulty logic", which doesn't imply malice (as does "dishonesty"). Also, the phrase has the extra dimension of ridiculing its target, whereas "uses faulty logic" is almost sympathetic. There are rare cases where it's applied unambiguously to plagiarism. I think this page should be merged with plagiarism or deleted, the term as it stands alone isn't worthy of a separate entry.--Son of Somebody 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content-free page

I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that this page mainly consists of attempts to argue "intellectual dishonesty" out of existence. Maybe it would be helpful to have some definitions of what intellectual honesty or dishonesty is -- rather than having two of the three paragraphs in the article list misuses of the term! Having read this article, I'm no longer surprised that no page exists for "intellectual honesty". Octopod 08:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual dishonesty: pretense to rigor

Consider the following actions:

• Presenting a claim that one knows to be false (lying).
• Presenting a claim where one knows that one's argument for it contains a fallacy, but one still believes the claim ("Even if I can't prove it, I know it to be true").
• Presenting a claim for which one knows one has insufficient evidence to hand ("The proof is out there").
• Presenting a claim based on evidence that one does not know to be faulty, but one has reason to suspect that it is faulty (for instance, you received it from a known con-man).
• Presenting a claim without inquiring into whether the evidence supports it (for instance, because one trusts the person who relayed it).
• Presenting a claim merely because it makes one look good, without any regard for whether it is true or false.

The last of these is identified by Harry Frankfurt as the act of bullshitting. Any of them, depending on circumstances, could be intellectually dishonest. --FOo 09:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article *needs* some sources

I have removed the following sentance:

"In such cases, the speaker is (perhaps unwittingly, and always ironically) guilty of both intellectual dishonesty and ignorance, because he or she has mistaken opinions for verifiable facts."

It is utterly unsupported, and smacks of someone gleefully extolling their own cleverness. 80.175.118.157 09:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is not only unsupported, it is wrong

"Advocacy of a position known to be false" is not what intellectual dishonesty is. Intellectual dishonesty is advocacy of a position using arguments or data known to be fallacious (e.g. using straw man arguments, circular logic, guilt by association, appealing to fear, ridicule, or emotion instead of reason, etc.). I don't have the time or expertise to write a properly cited, non-original-research article, but I am tempted to rewrite this one anyways if nobody else does soon, simply because a non-cited, original-researched article that is correct is probably better than a non-cited, original-researched article that is false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kjl (talk • contribs).

[edit] Intellectual integrity

I was thinking of using the following quote in a new article:

a lawyer’s job isn’t to discover truth, it’s to win an argument. Neither is an advocacy organization interested in truth—they are committed to advocating a certain position regardless of the facts.

Is there any interest in a general article about professions which routinely disregard the truth (or known facts, anyway)? It would seem to have a bearing on politicization of science; see also User:Ed Poor/definitions of politicization of science.

I often encounter the joke about the two least trustworthy professions: politician and used-car salesman. It goes without saying that a politician will say anything to get elected, and the salesman will say anything to make a sale (the lemon laws came about to try and curb this). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still no refs

It is now a year since a notice was put of this indicating there are no references. Still none, so I have put a afd notice on it. Unless it is referenced it is just unsubstantiated opinion, which has no place in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwhakahaere (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)