Intellectual Dishonesty

http://www.urbandictionary.com...lectual%20dishonesty


Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary.

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 a round about way to say "you're lying".

The statement that all hurricanes are caused by global warming is intellectually dishonest. Stating as fact that lung cancer is unrelated to cigarette smoking is intellectual dishonesty.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:

  • the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading

  • the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position

  • the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

    Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] 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. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.

    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.
  • Everybody can be great... because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.  


    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

    Original Post
    quote:
    Originally posted by Noah The African:

    The question is how does one discerne intellectual dishonesty from pure....ignorance?



    True dat and also there is the question of INTENT If a person is intentionally misrepresenting the truth, I would have to agree with labeling that as intellectual dishonesty.

    if a person expresses an opinion at variance with another's opinion, it is inappropriate to label this as "intellectual dishonesty".
    quote:
    Originally posted by ddouble:

    So what should happen when you think someone's position is intellectually dishonest?

    Should the accused party take offense? Counter the argument constructively?

    19



    The accuser must know that the writer INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS before they could honestly label a person's comments in this manner, IMHO.

    taking the first line of definition from urbandictionary.com

    "Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. An argument which is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary."


    Suppose DDouble says "I don't think the color gray is a very happy color and the rest of the crayons should disassociate themselves from gray because of everything that gray represents..."


    On what basis could i label this as intellectual dishonesty? (intentional misrepresentation)

    If Ddouble's true opinion is that gray is an unhappy color, why should anyone take it upon themselves to label him or his comments as intellectually dishonest since describing gray as unhappy can't logically be painted as "advocating a position known to be false"???

    How is someone's opinion about an issue that could go either way or many ways accurately, and truthfully labeled "intellectual dishonesty"?
    quote:
    Originally posted by ddouble:

    Should the accused party take offense?
    19




    Perhaps, since essentially, the accused party's comments are being labeled as manipulated or intentional advocation of falsehood.

    I believe that is indeed questioning the individual's "intellectual" integrity and presumes the authority and knowledge to do so.
    quote:
    Originally posted by negrospiritual:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ddouble:

    Should the accused party take offense?
    19




    Perhaps, since essentially, the accused party's comments are being labeled as manipulated or intentional advocation of falsehood.

    I believe that is indeed questioning the individual's "intellectual" integrity and presumes the authority and knowledge to do so.


    You don't think this:

    the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

    happens on this board? I do.

    If you agree that this happens too, you should be able to call someone on this, right?
    Are we using Urban Dictionary as a resource for something? Eek And from the tone of the Wikipedia entry, the author sounds like someone who him/herself has been stung a few times by the accusation.

    All intellectual dishonesty is, in debate, is the basic refusal to accept the truthful significance of any relevant element of fact, thought or logic which, if accepted, would tend to bolster the strength of an opposing view at the expense of the strength of yours.

    You need not be a liar to be intellectually dishonest.

    In fact, you don't even need to have intent to be intellectually dishonest. When you feel really strongly about your position -- or you REALLY want it to be true for some reason -- some people simply don't hear opposing truths because they don't want to.

    For example, "I know my son didn't kill that woman," in the absence of any real reason to know other than your love for the son you think you knew, is an intellectually dishonest statement. You don't know, and you KNOW you don't know. But while you KNOW you don't know, you're not really being intentionally dishonest.

    Obviously, the label can be invalidly used, like the Wiki entry says. But when one VALIDLY uses the label, it's because they notice within your argument a set of patent inconsistencies that, for various reasons, can't really be explained by simple lack of knowledge or inability to reason.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Vox:

    Are we using Urban Dictionary as a resource for something?



    Both were quick and easy references, as i am working on a couple of other things today and i wanted to use definitions other than my own for the purpose of fairness and objectivity.

    Could you suggest some other resources and/or link them here so i can read up on them later?
    quote:
    Originally posted by negrospiritual:
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Vox:
    Could you suggest some other resources?


    I was hoping I could find a definition from some school philosophy department website. That would be about all that I'd think we could consider truly authoritative. But I couldn't find any.

    This one is so-so:
    http://www.123exp-math.com/t/01704199459/
    Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of misleading impressions through the use of rhetoric, logical fallacy, fraud, or misrepresented evidence. It may stem from an ulterior motive, haste, sloppiness, or external pressure to reach a certain conclusion.

    I think a REALLY good way to look at intellectual dishonesty is to take the following definition of "self-deception" in Wikipedia and apply it to debate or discussion with other people:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception
    Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument.
    quote:
    Originally posted by negrospiritual:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Vox:

    You need not be a liar to be intellectually dishonest.

    In fact, you don't even need to have intent to be intellectually dishonest.
    huh? Confused
    In fact, you don't even need to have intent to be intellectually dishonest. When you feel really strongly about your position -- or you REALLY want it to be true for some reason -- some people simply don't hear opposing truths because they don't want to.

    For example, "I know my son didn't kill that woman," in the absence of any real reason to know other than your love for the son you think you knew, is an intellectually dishonest statement. You don't know, and you KNOW you don't know. But while you KNOW you don't know, you're not really being intentionally dishonest.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ddouble:

    So what should happen when you think someone's position is intellectually dishonest?

    Should the accused party take offense? Counter the argument constructively?

    19


    DDouble, upon 2nd thought, i will have to go back and rethink it some more, because I want to get a better/broader understanding of what is and is not intellectual dishonesty. IMHO, it seems that the label is being used differently than i've been taught, so after a little further reading and discusssion i prolly can respond more cogently.

    thanks for the question hat
    Intellectual dishonesty can most certainly be discerned from pure ignorance. And there is absolutely no need to "get into the other guy's head." The discernment is merely a matter of history and context. For example, if during an exchange, a writer begins re-defining their terms away from the common meaning to something more obscure ... that is intellectual dishonesty. If someone grabs a hold to some obscure point that they made that distracts from the argument in main ... that is intellectual dishonesty. If a writer merely repeats and/or re-phrases their argument without addressing the point of objection and then later acts as if they had addressed the objection ... that is intellectual dishonesty. If a writer posts pages and pages and pages of parsed cut and pasted quotes representing that the quotes constitute the totality of the discussion, when in fact they know that it not the case ... that is intellectual dishonesty.

    And for the record, intellectual dishonesty is not the same thing as a lie, though a lie can be an example of intellectual dishonesty.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
    Intellectual dishonesty can most certainly be discerned from pure ignorance. And there is absolutely no need to "get into the other guy's head." The discernment is merely a matter of history and context. For example, if during an exchange, a writer begins re-defining their terms away from the common meaning to something more obscure ... that is intellectual dishonesty. If someone grabs a hold to some obscure point that they made that distracts from the argument in main ... that is intellectual dishonesty. If a writer merely repeats and/or re-phrases their argument without addressing the point of objection and then later acts as if they had addressed the objection ... that is intellectual dishonesty. If a writer posts pages and pages and pages of parsed cut and pasted quotes representing that the quotes constitute the totality of the discussion, when in fact they know that it not the case ... that is intellectual dishonesty.

    And for the record, intellectual dishonesty is not the same thing as a lie, though a lie can be an example of intellectual dishonesty.


    “Intellectual dishonesty can most certainly be discerned from pure ignorance”

    Does “most certainly” mean “Always”, “most times”, “sometimes”? How can you be certain what another person knows? Secondly, are you referring to a debate between you and I?


    If someone said that something was PROFOUND....how would you debunk it? Everything being relative and perception being ones reality..... can an individual ever Debunk a relative claim? Is it constructive to even go down that path? In the end all the dissenter could say is that such was not their perception, but it does not invalidate the claim of profoundness. Thus, one is forced to judge by consensus.....which requires a population sample that is a microcosim of the universe....not a sample set that is not representative of the general population. Agree or disagree? If one cannot does not have a microcosm sample set to determine a normative baseline/interpretation....is the line of questioning worthy of persuit...or simply obfuscation in effect if not intent? If the one who is being dissented against recognizes the futitility of such an endevor....should they be compelled to follow into the abyss?

    You mentioned "Obscure"....how are you defining that or provide an example of an Obscure term.
    quote:
    Does “most certainly” mean “Always”, “most times”, “sometimes”? How can you be certain what another person knows?


    Most times.

    Based on what they say before and after. I think we all recognize disconnect in statements. This is the red flag of intellectual dishonesty and how they respond to being called on the disconnect is the proof.

    quote:
    Secondly, are you referring to a debate between you and I?


    No. I'm speaking in general.

    quote:
    If someone said that something was PROFOUND....how would you debunk it?


    I wouldn't try. As you indicate ... Profound is subjective. However, if the argument was "XXX is profound"; but is preceded by a statement(s) suggesting XXX's simplicity; and it followed by statement(s) describing XXX as unremarkable, then presenting XXX as profound is intellectually dishonest.

    And note, that analysis does not refer to the presenter as a liar, does not require intent, nor does it require getting into the presenters head, or clarification.

    Finally, from what I've seen, most of those calling intellectual dishonesty, have used this analysis. The claim is based on the words of the presenter.
    How do you control for poor communication? Can you assume that people always say what they mean? In other words, how do you allow for revision, without being accused of intellectual dishonesty? Because there is a disconnect in statements, in other words, to contradictory statements…..how do you determine which statement was actually meant? A person had a perception or observation in their head. They start expressing those cognitions into words to others. In the process of doing so, they say something that seems to contradict another statement. Thus, at that point there are two different thoughts being expressed. Does the fact that they are contradictory invalidate the author’s claim of what was meant or intended originally? If a person asserts "A" then later asserts "B"....how can you logically determine that they really meant "B" when their claim that there assertion is "A". By what logical reasoning could you? Why would you not accept "A" as their claim going forward and dismiss claim "B"? Moreover, should one not first prove that the two points are mutually exclusive, in that if one is true that the other is true, without the use of fallacies of composition? Furthermore, does disproving "B" disprove "A"? Is it not a fallacy to assume that because one assertion is wrong....that anotehr assertion is therefore wrong?

    In conclusion, the ability to effectively communicate is dependent upon one's proficiency with language. What is in a persons head, as thoughts, don't always come out as intended. Some people are better at lanquage skills than others and one cannot assume that poor communication or presentation of ones thought is by default being intellectually dishonest. When communication is ambigious and leads to multiple possibilities of interpretation or communication is contradictory...is not the only rational means of finding what was meant....asking?
    quote:
    Can you assume that people always say what they mean?


    Yes ... that is always my starting point.

    quote:
    In other words, how do you allow for revision, without being accused of intellectual dishonesty?


    The revision would merely have to be consistent with the initial statement, i.e., when reading the two statements together, both comments would make sense.

    quote:
    Because there is a disconnect in statements, in other words, to contradictory statements…..how do you determine which statement was actually meant? A person had a perception or observation in their head. They start expressing those cognitions into words to others. In the process of doing so, they say something that seems to contradict another statement. Thus, at that point there are two different thoughts being expressed. Does the fact that they are contradictory invalidate the author’s claim of what was meant or intended originally?


    Again, one can't continue to argue A = B and A = not B, without stepping back and acknowledging that one of the statements is incorrect. To do so is the definition of ID.

    But let's be clear, when there is a disconnect in statements, it is on the presenter to clarify the conflicting statements ... and do so, without dance or pretending that the disconnect didn't happen. I think that type of ID conduct sends a thread straight to the bottom.

    quote:
    When communication is ambigious and leads to multiple possibilities of interpretation or communication is contradictory...is not the only rational means of finding what was meant....asking?


    NO ... THIS IS NOT THE ONLY RATIONAL THING TO DO. Since the presenter knows what they are attempting to say, when called on something ... the rational thing is to man-up, accept that their statement was deficient and try again. It is only after a pattern of defending the contradictory statements, e.g., arguing whether the competing statements are in fact mutually exclusive, where the ID charge is leveled.
    People DON"T always effectively communicate what they mean. If the goal is to understand...and something is ambigious....I go back to something I wrote in another thread. That was that everything that everyone does is for a selfish reason. Hence, when something is ambiguous, and people don’t ask, it’s because there is an option that serves their interest. To ask potentially prevents the selfish gratification of the assumption. That is my first point.

    As opposed to speaking in code, lets say what we are really talking about. I made a relative claim….metaphorically….that a behavior was “rabid” which was interpreted to mean extreme (by dissenters) which I accepted as a working definition. The claim was made was also interpreted (by dissenters) to mean “What happened to Obama was equal to what the Democrats did to Bush/Republicans”, which I rejected. Thats how “rabid was interpreted and I denied that as my intention of the way it should be interpreted. Later I made the statement that Liberal whites are an equal and opposite force to conservative whites. So dissenters argued that here I was admitting that what I meant was that what Democrats did was equal to what Republicans did to Obama. Right off the bat one should recognize that this is a fallacy of composition. It assumes that what is true overall, is true for every instance. Thus, the point I made overall about politics and political parties, was applied to the specific instance of the Bush term vs the current Obama term. Moreover, it’s also the straw man fallacy in that my statement specifically was that liberal WHITES are an equal opposite force to Conservative whites and that there is no moral superiority. Well…..Obama is neither a white liberal or white conservative. He is not white…he is black (or both). So the argument that I made about white people and their offsetting political behavior cannot get be used to contradict a statement that was made with reference to a black politician (which one is Obama…a white liberal or white conservative). Furthermore, it’s a fallacy to selectively quote examples that dissenters feel contradicts what I say is my argument, while leaving out quotes that defend my assertion. Note that I made two separate and distinct comments. Once acknowledging a racial component and the other acknowledging a political component. The equal and opposite remarks I made was regarding the politics of party and white folks. I made a separate comment about racism and what was to be expected from a racist nation. Hence, it was never proven that the two statements were contradictory. The comments I made about equal and opposite were specific to white people politics. For me to have been claim that Democrats did the same thing…..the racial component would have to have existed. In other words, Republicans would have to have been being attacked on the grounds or racism, as well as politics, by the democrats. Obviously Bush was not black….so the racial dynamic could never be said to be equal and opposite. However, one could argue that the political dynamics of whites were offsetting.
    Sighing ....

    I told you that this thread wasn't about you, but rather a general observation about ID.

    quote:
    Posted by VOX, in "the State of AA.org thread:

    In person, if I'd said to NS, "What do you mean, 'what credentials'? Are u kidding me?" she would have immediately responded, "no-no-no, I'm not sayin' she has no credentials period; I'm sayin' what credentials can make up for her being a war criminal?" Then, I would've been like, "Oh, I gotchu." And that would have been the end of it.


    See? Same analysis ...

    But, this seems appropriate ...
    quote:
    quoted from NTA:
    I do thing, however, that people would willingly concede that they were wrong if the debate is civil.

    Kweli's comment:

    Most folks ... yes, well maybe; but some are too sure of their "rightness" ... too certain of the strength of their knowledge to admit that they were wrong or that they need to rethink their position.


    Oh well ... Roll Eyes
    quote:
    Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
    Sighing ....

    I told you that this thread wasn't about you, but rather a general observation about ID.

    quote:
    Posted by VOX, in "the State of AA.org thread:

    In person, if I'd said to NS, "What do you mean, 'what credentials'? Are u kidding me?" she would have immediately responded, "no-no-no, I'm not sayin' she has no credentials period; I'm sayin' what credentials can make up for her being a war criminal?" Then, I would've been like, "Oh, I gotchu." And that would have been the end of it.


    See same analysis ...

    But, this seems appropriate ...
    quote:
    quoted from NTA:
    I do thing, however, that people would willingly concede that they were wrong if the debate is civil.

    Kweli's comment:

    Most folks ... yes, well maybe; but some are too sure of their "rightness" ... too certain of the strength of their knowledge to admit that they were wrong or that they need to rethink their position.


    Oh well ... Roll Eyes


    My bad...I did read where you said that you were not using our debate as an example. My apologies.

    That should have read that I DID NOT read were you said that. See what I mean by not always properly communicating ones thoughts?
    quote:
    Originally posted by Vox:

    Are we using Urban Dictionary as a resource for something? Eek And from the tone of the Wikipedia entry, the author sounds like someone who him/herself has been stung a few times by the accusation.

    All intellectual dishonesty is, in debate, is the basic refusal to accept the truthful significance of any relevant element of fact, thought or logic which, if accepted, would tend to bolster the strength of an opposing view at the expense of the strength of yours.

    You need not be a liar to be intellectually dishonest.

    In fact, you don't even need to have intent to be intellectually dishonest. When you feel really strongly about your position -- or you REALLY want it to be true for some reason -- some people simply don't hear opposing truths because they don't want to.

    For example, "I know my son didn't kill that woman," in the absence of any real reason to know other than your love for the son you think you knew, is an intellectually dishonest statement. You don't know, and you KNOW you don't know. But while you KNOW you don't know, you're not really being intentionally dishonest.

    Obviously, the label can be invalidly used, like the Wiki entry says. But when one VALIDLY uses the label, it's because they notice within your argument a set of patent inconsistencies that, for various reasons, can't really be explained by simple lack of knowledge or inability to reason.



    I'm inclined to think that this is an overly broad interpretation. So far, the links on the matter, including the 123exp-math.com indicate using some device to create a particular impression. To me, that indicates the intent to deceive (or massage the facts) simply for the purpose of furthering one's argument.

    It doesn't take into consideration that one could arrive at a flawed conclusion from careful deliberation OR base their opinion upon their own belief system OR even develop an opinion based on repeated incidences of anecdotal experiences WITHOUT ulterior motive, haste, sloppiness or external pressure to reach a certain conclusion.

    In your prior example of the mom with the killer son who says "I know my son didn't kill that woman", if what she says is based on

    1. the fact that she raised him to respect the lives of others

    2. She had never seen him harm any other living creature

    3. He was sitting at her kitchen table eating a slice of her homemade peach cobbler at the time


    Then it is incorrect to say she is being intellectually dishonest. She is saying what she believes based on what she knows, which may indeed be flawed, but that is no indication of dishonesty. A flaw does not in and of itself mean dishonesty.

    She may have arrived at a faulty conclusion given everything she knows but is this really the same as using a rhetorical (or other) device to create an impression? I say no.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Vox:

    Obviously, the label can be invalidly used, like the Wiki entry says. But when one VALIDLY uses the label, it's because they notice within your argument a set of patent inconsistencies that, for various reasons, can't really be explained by simple lack of knowledge or inability to reason.


    The above statement would seem to indicate that if John Doe's argument seems inconsistent for inexplicable reasons, it's valid to call that argument intellectually dishonest...

    But doesn't that ascribe to him the ulterior motive of attempting to bolser his argument ?
    quote:
    Originally posted by negrospiritual:

    I'm inclined to think that this is an overly broad interpretation. So far, the links on the matter, including the 123exp-math.com indicate using some device to create a particular impression. To me, that indicates the intent to deceive (or massage the facts) simply for the purpose of furthering one's argument.
    Well, I definitely intended to word my definition broadly, but you're right that there's usually a device or tactic involved. But there has to be; it's how ID is expressed. But in general, I believe that people advance opinions that they believe. Not too many people advance opinions they know are flawed. But people tend to believe what they want to believe. In order to keep wrongly believing what you want to believe, you often have to overlook evidence that it's wrong, and see only evidence that it's right, even if it's weaker. And usually, when you're forced to put that forth, the condition your argument is in will compel you to engage in an ID tactic.

    Example. Noah posts a story that Obama is boycotting the racism conference because it criticizes Israel. Obama is my Messiah and does only what's morally right. Noah states, "He's a pawn, in the Israeli lobby's pockets, and doesn't want to upset white people or Jews."

    I might respond, "He's right to boycott the event, because Israel's situation is driven by a need for security, and by their scripture, not by racism. Just because the arabs are a different race doesn't mean it's racism. Obama is boycotting the event because a statement on something that's not racist is against what the conference stands for."

    So Oshun calls bullshit, saying (among other things) that whatever the motivation was, the conditions on the ground clearly demonstrate a "less than human" race-related treatment and attitude. Plus, American racism was borne of economic interests; surely slavery was racist anyway, right?

    I don't know how I'd respond to that. But if I want to continue to advance this argument, I might scrap what I said and come up with some other reason to boycott. Or, I might ask Oshun to define "less than human" or "race related treatment." These are intellectually dishonest tactics, but either way, the point is this: [I am still convinced that Obama can do no wrong. [/b] Therefore, the boycott MUST be the right thing to do. I'm being intellectually dishonest, yet I firmly believe my position must be right.
    I had a couple of responses typed out but I've decided what I really want to say is that these threads do us all a disservice when all this stuff is said in the abstract. Such abstract discussions, while beneficial, tend to take on a life of their own without resolving (if that's the intent) whatever issues the abstract discussion intend to address.
    This thread is not related to those discussions involving Noah. I was prompted to further explore the issue by witnessing posters indiscriminately flinging this term about simply because they didn't agree with a particular opinion, NOT because they actually had proof of any deception or flaw.

    leveling this charge indiscriminately (and without proof) is nothing more than an attempt to frame the opponent or their comments in a negative light. This is rightfully a point of contention.

    if you (generically) are throwing around labels like "intellectually dishonest" toward others, you should be able to prove it by pointing out intent and/or flaws. Otherwise, you are asserting a position that you do not know to be true, your motives are suspect, and YOU are being intellectually dishonest yourself.

    The "imma call this intellectual dishonesty because i vehemently disagree with it and/or because i don't understand it" rational is bogus.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Noah The African:

    How do you control for poor communication? Can you assume that people always say what they mean? In other words, how do you allow for revision, without being accused of intellectual dishonesty?



    If a revision of your comments is necessary, then you've conceded that your original assertion was incorrect, right?

    dangerousidea.blogspot.com


    "...It's tempting to say to someone you disagree with, "surely you really know, deep down, that you're wrong about this." But how do you prove such claims? Intellectual dishonesty claims invariably poison dialogue, they make parties less willing to engage the discussion. A price in civilized discourse is paid when these charges are made. (Look at the quality of discussion in the Intelligent Design debate if you doubt me). That's why I think intellectual dishonesty charges carry with the[m] a heavy burden of proof, and most of the time they are not worth making..." - Victor Reppert
    quote:
  • I was prompted to further explore the issue by witnessing posters indiscriminately flinging this term about simply because they didn't agree with a particular opinion, NOT because they actually had proof of any deception or flaw.

  • I think intellectual dishonesty charges carry with the[m] a heavy burden of proof...


  • I don't know what kind of "proof" a person can have... other than being able to point out what they are calling "intellectually dishonest" AND why. Proving someone's "intent" -- which is difficult and, I believe, irrelevant -- goes beyond the call of duty. As with any assertion someone makes, accusing a person of being "intellectually dishonest" has to be justified and the asserter's reasons for making the charge, IMO, should come automatically and should be stated in the post where they make the charge or those immediately following.


    quote:
    Originally posted by Noah The African:

    How do you control for poor communication? Can you assume that people always say what they mean? In other words, how do you allow for revision, without being accused of intellectual dishonesty?


    quote:
    Originally posted by Negrospiritual:

    If a revision of your comments is necessary, then you've conceded that your original assertion was incorrect, right?


    I would be inclined to agree with you but this is where speaking in the abstract doesn't help. First of all, who the hell knows what Noah is talking about. I mean... I've seen where people have come out and said "what I meant was" or "what I was trying to say was" when they communicated poorly and readily get people to accept their correction/amendment because of the plausibility (and promptness) of the correction/amendment and, perhaps more importantly, the perceived sincerity.

    That's totally different than a person who becomes defensive and ends up defending something they said but later want to claim they didn't mean or someone who accuses people of misinterpreting what they said without supplying a solid/consistent definition or statement stating what they meant and intended to say.
    quote:
    Originally posted by negrospiritual:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Noah The African:

    How do you control for poor communication? Can you assume that people always say what they mean? In other words, how do you allow for revision, without being accused of intellectual dishonesty?



    If a revision of your comments is necessary, then you've conceded that your original assertion was incorrect, right?



    Yes….in certain scenarios that is true. Now note…..I am about to revise the comment you quoted for better clarification. I think this is valid when there are multiple ways that an assertion can be interpreted. Hence, revision for the purpose of making an assertion less ambiguous is not an admission that the assertion is wrong. Therefore, I would revise that assertion which you quoted to read “In other words, when an assertion is ambiguous and has been interpreted in a way that was not intended, how do you allow for revision without being accused of being intellectually dishonest?”

    I think it also must be made clear that what need to be disproven are essentially the premise, inference and conclusion of the argument. Sometimes in debates people start focusing on finding ANYTHING to discredit in what you have said, if it is related to your premise/inference/conclusion or not. I think the goal in such case is to discredit the argument by suggesting if a flaw is found in ANYTHING you said, that it should cast doubt on EVERYTHING that you said. When I go to forums where there are a lot of whites, they routinely will focus on things as spelling. If you spelled a word wrong….they will attempt to use it to discredit your argument….and of course…..it usually does for that audience, especially when the topic is race and racism.


    PS
    As an aside, when there are different ways that something can be interpreted, the one a reader assumes says more about the reader’s intent than the authors. In psychology long ago they used to have “ink spot” test. That is when blobs of black ink would be splattered to form a shape and the patient would then be asked “what do you see?” Now….me…..I would probably see tig ole bitties in every blob… 20…and hence the doctor would know that I have an obsession with tig ole bitties. When there are multiple different ways that something can be interpreted…..the one you choose says a lot about your mindset. Hence, in a debate, when an assertion is ambiguous in that it can be interpreted different ways, the way the reader or dissenter chooses to interpret reveals their obsession, which is usually to discredit the argument. If the reader is seeking to better understand the argument and realizes that there are different ways that something can be interpreted, they ask for clarification.
    This could be interpreted as intellectual dishonesty:

      NTA: "My point was simply that Democrats have really been rabid in their attack on Republicans and that what goes around will come back around. Who started the cycle I am not sure..."

      NS: your point that democrats have been "really rabid" in attacks toward republicans is unfounded.

      NTA: I never used the adverb “Really” to accentuate “Rabid”.


    Note: There was no acknowledgment that the word "really" was used to modify "rabid." I guess "have been really rabid" could very well sound different from "have really been rabid" but it strikes me as a "toh-may-toh", "toh-mah-toh" type of difference.
    quote:
    Proving someone's "intent" -- which is difficult and, I believe, irrelevant -- goes beyond the call of duty


    I think intent is the redherring of this discussion. It takes us on a dead path. But that said, here as in the law, intent can be inferred through establishing that: 1) the argument is wrong/flawed; 2) the present knew [or should have known] the argument is/was flawed; and 3) despite this knowing, the present continued arguing.

    quote:
    Sometimes in debates people start focusing on finding ANYTHING to discredit in what you have said, if it is related to your premise/inference/conclusion or not. I think the goal in such case is to discredit the argument by suggesting if a flaw is found in ANYTHING you said, that it should cast doubt on EVERYTHING that you said. When I go to forums where there are a lot of whites, they routinely will focus on things as spelling. If you spelled a word wrong….they will attempt to use it to discredit your argument….and of course…..it usually does for that audience, especially when the topic is race and racism.


    And that "look over here" tact is easily dealt with, you simply concede the flaw and ask: "Now does that change the basis of the (my) argument?"

    No, I think ID is a exhibition of some folks just not wanting to concede being wrong or better some folks just gotta be right. It's folks' fundamental refusal to admit any flaw is the basis of the ID problem. And, because we are all smarter than the average poster (at least in our own minds) we attempt to silence the detractors with our brillance, dazzle with our dance and ultimately, baffle them with our bs. This is what points and pushes us down the ID path.
    quote:
    I think intent is the redherring of this discussion.


    Both the "intent" and the "allowing for revision" thing are obvious red herrings.


    quote:
    It takes us on a dead path. But that said, here as in the law, intent can be inferred through establishing that: 1) the argument is wrong/flawed; 2) the present knew [or should have known] the argument is/was flawed; and 3) despite this knowing, the present continued arguing.


    Interesting point...

    Can this be applied to someone who has been accused of lying? I ask because I've done that and the person's defense was akin to this "intent" idea where, in order for me to know that s/he lied I would have had to been able to "get into their head" which, of course, I could not.

    Note: I agree with Vox -- there is a difference between being a liar/telling a lie and being intellectually dishonest. I don't know what it is... lol... but I think there's a difference.

    Big Grin
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    This could be interpreted as intellectual dishonesty:

      NTA: "My point was simply that Democrats have really been rabid in their attack on Republicans and that what goes around will come back around. Who started the cycle I am not sure..."

      NS: your point that democrats have been "really rabid" in attacks toward republicans is unfounded.

      NTA: I never used the adverb “Really” to accentuate “Rabid”.


    Note: There was no acknowledgment that the word "really" was used to modify "rabid." I guess "have been really rabid" could very well sound different from "have really been rabid" but it strikes me as a "toh-may-toh", "toh-mah-toh" type of difference.


    That is actually a FLAW. I had not actually realized that I said REALLY rabid later on in the debate. I just went back to my original or initial response to the article. I was defending my initial assertions that created the initial dissent.
    quote:
    That is actually a FLAW.


    Roll Eyes


    Perhaps the "flaw" came in thinking other people quote statements from the person they're responding to just to signify who they are responding to instead of singling out a specific portion of a person's post they find objectionable/interesting.

    Or perhaps the flaw was in thinking you that as long as you claimed you didn't say it that that would be the end of it (something close to "who are you going to believe? Me? or Your lying eyes?).

    Or perhaps the "flaw" was in saying all kinds of things to try to defend your questionable statement that you couldn't even remember (or chose not to remember) stuff you said in your post right before you accused NS of "embellishing" your point.

    Regardless, when someone makes a strong statement like "I never said [that]" or "I never used [that term]"... the last thing anyone should be able to do is find the contradicting statement in the very post where the "I never" statement is made.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
    quote:
    Proving someone's "intent" -- which is difficult and, I believe, irrelevant -- goes beyond the call of duty


    I think intent is the redherring of this discussion. It takes us on a dead path. But that said, here as in the law, intent can be inferred through establishing that: 1) the argument is wrong/flawed; 2) the present knew [or should have known] the argument is/was flawed; and 3) despite this knowing, the present continued arguing.

    quote:
    Sometimes in debates people start focusing on finding ANYTHING to discredit in what you have said, if it is related to your premise/inference/conclusion or not. I think the goal in such case is to discredit the argument by suggesting if a flaw is found in ANYTHING you said, that it should cast doubt on EVERYTHING that you said. When I go to forums where there are a lot of whites, they routinely will focus on things as spelling. If you spelled a word wrong….they will attempt to use it to discredit your argument….and of course…..it usually does for that audience, especially when the topic is race and racism.


    And that "look over here" tact is easily dealt with, you simply concede the flaw and ask: "Now does that change the basis of the (my) argument?"

    No, I think ID is a exhibition of some folks just not wanting to concede being wrong or better some folks just gotta be right. It's folks' fundamental refusal to admit any flaw is the basis of the ID problem. And, because we are all smarter than the average poster (at least in our own minds) we attempt to silence the detractors with our brillance, dazzle with our dance and ultimately, baffle them with our bs. This is what points and pushes us down the ID path.


    I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say “intent” in the red herring of this discussion. What needs to be acknowledged is that language is not an exact science. Each term in the English language has multiple different usages. Hence, communication by its nature can be ambiguous. This is why when things are written for the purpose of law, that it is very lengthy in order to remove doubt of interpretation. So I think it is incumbent to understand intent when the effect is ambiguous. When people take the liberty of saying that “This is what you meant….or this is what you are trying to say”, that is being intellectually dishonest because the one who takes liberty has no way of proving that claim. Asking questions is a sign of intellectual honesty. It demonstrates that more information is needed to before the mind can or should process a conclusion or response. However, if a person has a “know it all” personality and mindset, they rarely feel they need to ask questions or seek understanding.

    Add Reply

    Likes (0)
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×