Talk:Intellectual dishonesty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. 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 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 is within the scope of the WikiProject:Moral Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to ethics and moral philosophy. You can help – read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles and then start editing! For more information, visit the project's discussion page and browse the portal.

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

[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. This article has been tagged since 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)