Talk:Intellectual dishonesty

Being an intellect knowing the true meaning of the facts and figures, when one intentionally misuse those facts and figures to mislead individual or society for personal gains by ignoring its short and long term negative impacts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Tufail Sahar (talk • contribs) 20:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

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)

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)

Unintentional intellectual dishonesty

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)

But then, why did the distinction between intellectual and moral dishonesty occur?--83.108.21.155 (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion isn't relevant. One of the most common forms of intellectual dishonesty is the failure to apply standards that one thinks necessary to rational debate to one's own arguments -- if one simply doesn't think to do so, such omission is unconscious. -- 98.108.223.28 (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

how does intellectual dishonest have anything to do with plagiarism? i could see how plagiarism is a form of dishonesty - but it's not intellectual dishonesty. and even if it were, the reverse wouldn't logically follow. (that would be an example of the aforementioned "faulty logic"). Kevin Baas^talk 17:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

In order to win an argument, the lawyer must know the truth. They need all the facts and evidence available. And they need to anticipate the opposing lawyer's argument. All of this requires full and accurate knowledge about the case, as well as all laws pertinent to the situation. In the end, he who has more complete and accurate information wins the argument. So a lawyer's first task is always to discover the truth. As much of it as possible, as quickly as possible. One minor detail or one stipulation of a seemingly unrelated law could be the difference between winning and losing a case. What of what he's discovered he chooses to disclose, well, that's another story. And after all, there's what's called "attorney-client privilege". Kevin Baas^talk 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

article contradicts itself

It lists as an example of intellectual dishonesty:

• "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"

yet it states later in the article that: "If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance"

Now if a person is unaware of the evidence, it follows that they do not know their position to be true and have not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position. According to the second example given in the article, this would imply that their position is intellectual dishonesty, not ignorance. Therein lies the contradiction. It is my opinion that that example should be stricken. Kevin Baas^talk 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Kevin. I think you're right. And maybe we need to create 2 classes of ID:

1. knowingly advocating a false position, and
2. advocating a position which (in your ignorance) you think is true, but you really should have tried harder to verify it

Or maybe it's just the case that if you haven't done your due diligence and someone points out your error, the honest thing to do is acknowledge your lapse.

A related point: whom do we trust more? Someone who readily admits errors when they are pointed out, or someone who insists he's right all the time? And is this trust issue different in politics or journalism than it is in science? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the latter would fall under the category of "Truthiness". I, personally would be more trusting of the former and develop a strong distaste for the latter, quite irrespective of who was right more often. But I think it depends on the individual doing the trusting, and that, roughly speaking, it's a matter of where one lies on the political spectrum and how smart you are. A less intellectually fit individual is going to be apt to follow an authority-figure (and thus the second type), as their experience has taught them that its a better survival strategy than relying on their rather weak reasoning skills. A smarter individual is going to be more prone to use their reasoning skills, which have worked well for them, and thus would be more likely, for instance, to take up science - in which readily admitting errors is part of the job description. (and, being smart, they'd have a large ego. one large enough that admitting an error here and there -- or even copiously -- wouldn't damage it. indeed, they'd be excited about the discovery!)

But I digress. I would call "advocating a position which (in your ignorance) you think is true, but you really should have tried harder to verify it" intellectual complacency. And I would distinguish this from "intellectual dishonesty" just as much as i would distinguish dishonesty from complacency in any other context.

regarding "if you haven't done your due diligence and someone points out your error, the honest thing to do is acknowledge your lapse." - this is more on point, i think. though i would call a person who doesn't acknowledge this lapse "stubborn" (or, in much harsher terms, "stupid by design") and it may be that the person simply doesn't accept what the other person is saying to be true. Or perhaps declines to investigate the logical connection -- or simply doesn't see it. In any of these case the person is never really being dishonest because he is not aware of anything he's saying or thinking to be false.

In any case it doesn't fit the description of "lying to yourself in your mind" - which is how i interpret "intellectual dishonest", roughly speaking. If a person lied to someone else -- even if this was simply failing to acknowledge an error -- if they did this on purpose, that wouldn't constitute "intellectual dishonest" because to themselves they are aware and accepting of the facts. They might be being intellectual dishonest about the consequences of lying to the person (or the likelihood of getting away with it), but that's a different issue.

now if a person knows that they have not done their due diligence yet pretends to themselves that they have, then that is being intellectually dishonest about "due diligence". this just so happens to be a part of the thought process, it doesn't mean that that part -- diligence -- is a factor in determining one's "intellectual honesty", its rather the thing that one is being dishonest about. And it's still simply a matter of lying to oneself. IMO. Kevin Baas^talk 16:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

come to think of it, when i envision intellectual dishonesty the first thing i see is bill o'reilly. and i recall seeing him make stuff up thats simply untrue - that he hasn't done due (or any) diligence on. confusing thing is i think he actually believes what he's saying, and i wouldn't exactly call it ignorance because ignorance isn't innately malicious. Perhaps one might call this "bullshit" instead? it might be suitable to put these distinctions in the article but i fear that would bee too much original research. Kevin Baas^talk 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"if a person is unaware of the evidence, it follows that they do not know their position to be true and have not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position" -- no such thing follows; no one is ever aware of all the evidence, and there could always be evidence that would undermine a conclusion, no matter how diligent one was in reaching it. -- 98.108.223.60 (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

imho

The term 'intellectual honesty' breaks down into many sub-headings; and allows for both individual experience and individual coertion.

This would break down into numerous sub-headings based upon the poster in question.

Generally, for the sake of the discussion, I won't go into the difficulties faced with different social experiences other than to say that to not allow for such in a rational discussion is pointless, as it absolves both the parties of finding a common ground upon which to view the fact within its essence (within the boundries of human comprehension).

The question (or debate) is technically irellivant; or as was neatly noted, politically inspired. Unless someone has the ultimate finger-on-the-button, which they do these days; and is a point I shall address later.

The base question is this: Can I say something with all aparant honesty that I know to be untrue is a fact?

That allows for a few answers:

Yes, because I'm a pratt.

Yes, because I realise that it will cause the fact to be argued, in order for a present hypothesis to be shown as right or wrong.

Yes, because I suddenly realised I am somewhat unable to directly recieve the entire magnetic/quantum/digital spectrum directly into my synapses.(scarey one, that)

No, because you are wrong.

These general headings tend to sum up the intellectual dishonest for me. I avoided the paid lot and the corperately-'inspired'...but they tend to fit the catagories.

As this falls under discussion, I feel no need to supply references...however I will do so at great length to anyone who bothers to ask, provided they read them.Findelin (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Only Citation is now a dead link; dubious and vague claims

• "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."

This claim is impossible to verify, it suggests a preconception about the term that may or may not hold any validity. As such this claim could also be a biased slant.

• "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."

Again, this claim suggests a slant and will establish a preconception about the use of the term. The term may be used in that fashion but it is certainly not only used in that fashion and the frequency of it's use in this way is debatable. If this line remains in the article it should be accompanied by an example of a positive use of the term.

• "This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy."

Also too vague to verify. What this line actually communicates is "I, the editor, personally believe the term appears most frequently in debates on speculative issues". If this is a factual claim then it needs cited, if not it needs removed. AndreisEntaro (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)