Educate QV

[odeon]

Intellectual dishonesty? Read Al's last couple of callouts or his walls of text all over the board. The latest example is his massively dishonest treatment of Walkie.

Be a little constructive, Odeon. I am sure QV wants this thread to be free of you trying to bait me. Are you going to apologise to her Majesty for being an assclown? Go on, Odeon. Apologise.

Now there's an example of intellectual dishonesty right there.

No apologies then I take it 

 Seriously. I will try to keep my examples non-forum centric. I will try to not let this thread turn into a shit show.

Your intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

[Jack]

Plagiarism is a good example of intellectual dishonesty, so are the biased speeches of politicians. Anything related to the study and teachings of learned professional people who society look to for their knowledge of the truth, can be impacted by intellectual dishonesty.

Like Walkie, I want to plus you. Thanks for teaching me something new.

You're welcome.

[Jack]

I've always taken it to be a synonym of sophistry.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, because sophistry generally involves a seemingly intelligent stance. However, don't consider it intellectual dishonesty unless the person doing it is someone who is considered to be an expert or authority in what they're saying.

[Gopher Gary]

I blame my intellectual dishonesty on Russian hackers. 

[Al Swearegen]

I blame my intellectual dishonesty on Russian hackers. 

Those Pesky Russians

[Fun With Matches]

I blame my intellectual dishonesty on Russian hackers. 

  You're funny Gopher.

[Gopher Gary]

I blame my intellectual dishonesty on Russian hackers. 

  You're funny Gopher.

 

[Lestat]

Odeon you gutterborn son of a whore, QV didn't start this thread to have it polluted by your shitspeak and egotistic, emotionally ruled sack of piss. Al did nothing wrong, and despite your constant claims to be taking the moral high ground, here you go, doing exactly the opposite with cheap shots that would be unworthy of a small child, so kindly do QV a favour and if your going to post in here at all, make it something that at least is intended, to be constructive and useful to her, else it really is blatantly obvious just what kind of an uppity litttle pissant you are.

QV, I've often taken the view of intellectual dishonesty as, in one definition, in a logical discussion, twisting the rules of logic, employing intuitive-sounding but in fact fallaceous reasoning when the speaker KNOWS this to be the case and does so nevertheless in order to win the argument. Whilst the liar may be lying solely to the listener, the intellectually dishonest, as I see it, lies also to themselves in order to justify so doing, whilst the liar sensu stricto, may well not give a fucking rats arse that he speaks with a forked tongue. But the intellectually dishonest one, twists the rules of logic to present an argument as seemingly in their favour, knowing that the argument itself is based upon faulty logic nonetheless and does it anyway, the plain liar on the other hand, they could just be lying to the other, for gain, be it material or to 'win' the debate, and hasn't a care that their reasoning is specious, all that matters is the end result, the intellectually dishonest liar formulates the fallacious reasoning knowing it is so, and taking care to make it sound not only persuasive, but analyzing the way they do it so as to cover up their deception.

Whilst somebody who speaks that which is false, or fallacious reasoning, but who knows it not, is neither lying nor intellectually dishonest, rather they are making a statement which they BELIEVE themselves to be truth, but do so in error. I.e, they are making a mistake. The intellectually dishonest individual on the other hand not only distorts the truth for their ends but justifies it to themselves first so they can predict the response of those they are trying to sell their BS to, and formulate their argument accordingly. Lying to themselves so they can better lie to another is another for of intellectual dishonesty. 

[Jack]

Whilst somebody who speaks that which is false, or fallacious reasoning, but who knows it not, is neither lying nor intellectually dishonest,

That's incorrect. It's not uncommon for intellectual dishonesty to be unintended. The result of research which is faulty by means of error, laziness, personal bias, or being incomprehensive, is intellectually dishonest because other people may trust the results based on the professional credentials of the person, without necessarily knowing or understanding the specifics of their methodology.

[Lestat]

I disagree, the dishonesty is not on the part of the recipient of the argument and their processing of it, that is down to their inherent intellectual capability.

If valid information, for example is presented, say, in the format of a research journal article, and I fail to understand it because I do not have the ability to understand the data as presented, that doesn't make the writer of the article intellectually dishonest.

The burden of proof is on the person presenting the argument.

If it is unintended, then it is an error, pure and simple. For actual dishonesty to be present then the presenter of the specious reasoning must KNOW that the reasoning they present is specious. Thats the important defining factor-the knowledge of the speaker that the reasoning is fallacious. They must know it is false and speak it still, if they speak falsehood but do not KNOW what they say is false or specious then they are telling no lies, but they are presenting what they believe to be correct  logic as truth, when in fact it is not truth but the speaker does not know this.

Therein, in the INTENT lies the intellectual dishonesty or absence thereof. One cannot lie regarding a subject if the untruth told is believed to be true, the motive is honorable, but the reasoning is faulty, to lie, one must know, or at the least, have good reason to believe the arguent fallacious, and continue to impart it heedless of the truth or falsehood of what is communicated. If it is incorrect and believed honest, then it is in error, but not a lie. To lie demands knowledge of the fact of the logic or data being fallacious, either deliberately made so or in error on the part of the creator of the information or argument, but the person who presents it, the liar, must know that they are lying. If they do not know, then they do not have the capacity to tell the lie in relation to the subject of the specious argument.

[odeon]

Odeon you gutterborn son of a whore, QV didn't start this thread to have it polluted by your shitspeak and egotistic, emotionally ruled sack of piss. Al did nothing wrong, and despite your constant claims to be taking the moral high ground, here you go, doing exactly the opposite with cheap shots that would be unworthy of a small child, so kindly do QV a favour and if your going to post in here at all, make it something that at least is intended, to be constructive and useful to her, else it really is blatantly obvious just what kind of an uppity litttle pissant you are.

Wake up, little druggie. We've moved on and if you had steered clear of the bad chemicals you would have noticed.

[Jack]

I disagree, the dishonesty is not on the part of the recipient of the argument and their processing of it, that is down to their inherent intellectual capability.

If valid information, for example is presented, say, in the format of a research journal article, and I fail to understand it because I do not have the ability to understand the data as presented, that doesn't make the writer of the article intellectually dishonest.

The burden of proof is on the person presenting the argument.

If it is unintended, then it is an error, pure and simple. For actual dishonesty to be present then the presenter of the specious reasoning must KNOW that the reasoning they present is specious. Thats the important defining factor-the knowledge of the speaker that the reasoning is fallacious. They must know it is false and speak it still, if they speak falsehood but do not KNOW what they say is false or specious then they are telling no lies, but they are presenting what they believe to be correct  logic as truth, when in fact it is not truth but the speaker does not know this.

Therein, in the INTENT lies the intellectual dishonesty or absence thereof. One cannot lie regarding a subject if the untruth told is believed to be true, the motive is honorable, but the reasoning is faulty, to lie, one must know, or at the least, have good reason to believe the arguent fallacious, and continue to impart it heedless of the truth or falsehood of what is communicated. If it is incorrect and believed honest, then it is in error, but not a lie. To lie demands knowledge of the fact of the logic or data being fallacious, either deliberately made so or in error on the part of the creator of the information or argument, but the person who presents it, the liar, must know that they are lying. If they do not know, then they do not have the capacity to tell the lie in relation to the subject of the specious argument.

Once had this discussion with SG, and he was correct. By definition a lie is simply a falsehood and it doesn't have to be intentional to be a lie. A lie is a lie and yes sometimes lies are also intentional. The lies of intellectuals are more likely to be believed by the masses so the things they say and publish are held to a different standard than a layman who might make intelligent sounding arguments or assessments.

[Lestat]

That is true, jack, they do. But that has to do with the principle of authoritas, rather than the truth or falsehood of the statement. The two occur together but are, in terms of cause and effect, although they in practice ought to be treated together as an interacting pair of principles, the two are nevertheless, separate. The truth or otherwise of a statement requires the burden of proof, save those prepositions which are by their nature, axiomatic. But even an unproved true or false statement, remains true or false respectively, whether or not proved.

And inherent in the definition of a lie is INTENT upon the part of the speaker. The wrongful arguer intends to persuade the subject to which they present their prepositions that their position is correct because they believe it factual, whatever their motive is for the information to be imparted, and would rescind the prepositions if they were known to be false, The liar would not change their stance, wanting the subject to believe their falsehood whilst the wrongful man would do so, upon knowing themself to be wrong.

Of course that does not preclude one from starting out incorrect, discovering the truth and ex post facto omitting deliberately to communicate the status change, this is the 'lie of omission', being passive and post-facto whilst a lie of comission is active and pre-facto.

[odeon]

"Oh, I'm sorry, Odeon, I guess I didn't pay attention."
"No worries, mate."