Intellectual Dishonesty or a Lie

[Foxfyre]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now and trying to figure out if I was right or wrong.

Recently I was criticized for accusing another member of lying. In my opinion, I did not accuse the member of lying. My intent was to say that it was intellectually dishonest to not consider any argument other than the one the member had chosen to believe.

My general definition of intellectual dishonesty is:

• Advocacy for or promotion of a position while intentionally omitting mitigating factors.
  
• Refusal to consider another point of view or verifiable facts while stubbornly defending one’s point of view.
  
• Extreme partisanship or ideological perspective that assigns positive or negative attributes to a person or group for no reason other than they do not agree.
  
• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.
• Repeating something as truth because you want it to be truth even after it has been shown that a belief is flawed or incorrect.

The person does not intentionally lie and is therefore not a liar. In each case, a person believes or wants something to be a truth so strongly that he or she is unwilling to consider or accept anything that might compromise or weaken what he or she has adopted as truth.

I’m sure others can think of other truths for the definition or some may have a good argument for why some bullet points should not be included.

So what do you think? Is intellectual dishonesty the same thing as lying?

Or is it something else?

 

[logical4u]

Since "racist" and "bigot" have lost their bite, it is the new insult to silence the opposing views.

 

[manifold]

Depends on how technical you want to be in your definition of 'lying'.

If you narrowly define it as knowingly posting a falsehood, then intellectual dishonesty is not lying.

If you broadly define it as knowingly attempting to deceive, then intellectual dishonesty is lying.

 

[manifold]

PS: I'd wager a king's ransom that Ravi is the poster alluded to in the OP.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Foxfyre]

Depends on how technical you want to be in your definition of 'lying'.

If you narrowly define it as knowingly posting a falsehood, then intellectual dishonesty is not lying.

If you broadly define it as knowingly attempting to deceive, then intellectual dishonesty is lying.

? Did you intend to say these two sentences as you said them Mani? Because I'm not seeing any difference beween the two. If you did intend to post them as they are, please explain.

And no, I am not alluding to Ravi at all.

 

[martybegan]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now and trying to figure out if I was right or wrong.

Recently I was criticized for accusing another member of lying. In my opinion, I did not accuse the member of lying. My intent was to say that it was intellectually dishonest to not consider any argument other than the one the member had chosen to believe.

My general definition of intellectual dishonesty is:

• Advocacy for or promotion of a position while intentionally omitting mitigating factors.
  
• Refusal to consider another point of view or verifiable while stubbornly defending one’s point of view.
  
• Extreme partisanship or ideological perspective that assigns positive or negative attributes to a person or group for no reason other than they do not agree.
  
• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.
• Repeating something as truth because you want it to be truth even after it has been shown that a belief is flawed or incorrect.

The person does not intentionally lie and is therefore not a liar. In each case, a person believes or wants something to be a truth so strongly that he or she is unwilling to consider or accept anything that might compromise or weaken what he or she has adopted as truth.

I’m sure others can think of other truths for the definition or some may have a good argument for why some bullet points should not be included.

So what do you think? Is intellectual dishonesty the same thing as lying?

Or is it something else?

To me a lie requires that the statment made is 100% untrue, and you know, for a fact, that the statement is untrue. If any part of it is open to interpretation then the use of the word "lie" is not mandated.

As for intellectual dishonesty, that is a term with far more ambiguity. Lets use a recent example from Daily Kos.

Daily Kos: Poll: GOP action hero Chris Christie has net negative approval rating

The article notes that Christie's approval is down, but trys to skew the reason towards people's dislike of his hardline stance on state workers, budget etc. However if you go to another site, you see one of the reasons being that people expected thier property taxes to go down more, and they didnt.

Poll: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie Attracting More Critics « CBS New York

This is not included in the Kos analysis, as it does not play towards the story they want to tell, it in fact means some people dont like Chirsties because he isnt cutting ENOUGH stuff to lower thier taxes.

The above to me intellectual dishonesty, as you state in point 1. its is not a lie, mearly spin.

 

[Foxfyre]

Since "racist" and "bigot" have lost their bite, it is the new insult to silence the opposing views.

That is true. BUT. . . .

Is calling other members 'racist' and 'bigot' to silence them an illustration of intellectual dishonesty?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been thinking about this for a couple of days now and trying to figure out if I was right or wrong.

Recently I was criticized for accusing another member of lying. In my opinion, I did not accuse the member of lying. My intent was to say that it was intellectually dishonest to not consider any argument other than the one the member had chosen to believe.

My general definition of intellectual dishonesty is:

• Advocacy for or promotion of a position while intentionally omitting mitigating factors.
  
• Refusal to consider another point of view or verifiable while stubbornly defending one’s point of view.
  
• Extreme partisanship or ideological perspective that assigns positive or negative attributes to a person or group for no reason other than they do not agree.
  
• Accusing another of lying or being dishonest without any ability to defend the accusation.
• Repeating something as truth because you want it to be truth even after it has been shown that a belief is flawed or incorrect.

The person does not intentionally lie and is therefore not a liar. In each case, a person believes or wants something to be a truth so strongly that he or she is unwilling to consider or accept anything that might compromise or weaken what he or she has adopted as truth.

I’m sure others can think of other truths for the definition or some may have a good argument for why some bullet points should not be included.

So what do you think? Is intellectual dishonesty the same thing as lying?

Or is it something else?

To me a lie requires that the statment made is 100% untrue, and you know, for a fact, that the statement is untrue. If any part of it is open to interpretation then the use of the word "lie" is not mandated.

As for intellectual dishonesty, that is a term with far more ambiguity. Lets use a recent example from Daily Kos.

Daily Kos: Poll: GOP action hero Chris Christie has net negative approval rating

The article notes that Christie's approval is down, but trys to skew the reason towards people's dislike of his hardline stance on state workers, budget etc. However if you go to another site, you see one of the reasons being that people expected thier property taxes to go down more, and they didnt.

Poll: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie Attracting More Critics « CBS New York

This is not included in the Kos analysis, as it does not play towards the story they want to tell, it in fact means some people dont like Chirsties because he isnt cutting ENOUGH stuff to lower thier taxes.

The above to me intellectual dishonesty, as you state in point 1. its is not a lie, mearly spin.

Bingo. The first bullet point of my definition is advocacy for or promoting something as fact while intentionally omitting mitigating factors. Daily Kos and some other sources are notorious for that kind of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[HUGGY]

With all due respect...BULLSHIT!!!

People are responsible for ALL of their actions and that includes what they say, type, pass on or dream up.

Something that is not true..is a lie.

True story!

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes.

It's all about intent. Leaving out pertinent information when making an argument, when you KNOW that the information makes your points invalid, is just lying. Intellectual dishonesty is just lying.

There are no *degrees* of lies. A lie is a lie.

Not to be confused with a mistake...someone who just has incorrect information and believes it and passes it on...that person may or may not actually be lying. But if that person has been shown that their information is faulty, and they continue to spread it as if it is factual...that person is a liar.

 

[manifold]

Depends on how technical you want to be in your definition of 'lying'.

If you narrowly define it as knowingly posting a falsehood, then intellectual dishonesty is not lying.

If you broadly define it as knowingly attempting to deceive, then intellectual dishonesty is lying.

? Did you intend to say these two sentences as you said them Mani? Because I'm not seeing any difference beween the two. If you did intend to post them as they are, please explain.

Yes, I re-read them and they are as intended.

A falsehood is by definition a false statement of fact (i.e. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"). That is an obvious lie. One can be intellectually dishonest (as is usually the case) without actually making false statements of fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

With all due respect...BULLSHIT!!!

People are responsible for ALL of their actions and that includes what they say, type, pass on or dream up.

Something that is not true..is a lie.

True story!

Okay. If you apply strict definition of a lie being that which is not true, I can't argue with your reasoning here.

And he who tells a lie is a liar.

But, if we are intellectually honest, does believing and repeating what one honestly believes to be true that in fact is not true make one a liar?

 

[Foxfyre]

Depends on how technical you want to be in your definition of 'lying'.

If you narrowly define it as knowingly posting a falsehood, then intellectual dishonesty is not lying.

If you broadly define it as knowingly attempting to deceive, then intellectual dishonesty is lying.

? Did you intend to say these two sentences as you said them Mani? Because I'm not seeing any difference beween the two. If you did intend to post them as they are, please explain.

Yes, I re-read them and they are as intended.

A falsehood is by definition a false statement of fact (i.e. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"). That is an obvious lie. One can be intellectually dishonest (as is usually the case) without actually making false statements of fact.

I guess I'm not making the distinction that you did.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" is the obvious lie in the minds of many.

However . . .

Defining getting a blow job as not being the same thing as sexual relations could put it in the category of intellectual dishonesty by my definition.

 

[martybegan]

Yes.

It's all about intent. Leaving out pertinent information when making an argument, when you KNOW that the information makes your points invalid, is just lying. Intellectual dishonesty is just lying.

There are no *degrees* of lies. A lie is a lie.

Not to be confused with a mistake...someone who just has incorrect information and believes it and passes it on...that person may or may not actually be lying. But if that person has been shown that their information is faulty, and they continue to spread it as if it is factual...that person is a liar.

Going with the Kos example, the statement about the survey showing disapproval is true. Its also true that some of the people who disaprove do it due to his attempts to cut the budget. The point being made by the Kos writer is not invalid, however the exclusion of the information that points towards the voters dissatisfaction with the lowering of property taxes would take away from thier view that Christie's unpopularity is for reasons THEY dont like him.

I don't see this as a lie, they did not make any untruthful statements. What they did is omit a certain analysis as to why his numbers moved, as it didnt fit thier agenda.

It is not 100% honest, but thats what political debate has become in this country.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes.

It's all about intent. Leaving out pertinent information when making an argument, when you KNOW that the information makes your points invalid, is just lying. Intellectual dishonesty is just lying.

There are no *degrees* of lies. A lie is a lie.

Not to be confused with a mistake...someone who just has incorrect information and believes it and passes it on...that person may or may not actually be lying. But if that person has been shown that their information is faulty, and they continue to spread it as if it is factual...that person is a liar.

If pertinent information that you KNOW invalidates your position is omitted, I agree. That is a bald faced, flat out lie.

But how about leaving out pertinent information that you know would weaken your argument that you nevertheless continue to believe is right?

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes.

It's all about intent. Leaving out pertinent information when making an argument, when you KNOW that the information makes your points invalid, is just lying. Intellectual dishonesty is just lying.

There are no *degrees* of lies. A lie is a lie.

Not to be confused with a mistake...someone who just has incorrect information and believes it and passes it on...that person may or may not actually be lying. But if that person has been shown that their information is faulty, and they continue to spread it as if it is factual...that person is a liar.

Going with the Kos example, the statement about the survey showing disapproval is true. Its also true that some of the people who disaprove do it due to his attempts to cut the budget. The point being made by the Kos writer is not invalid, however the exclusion of the information that points towards the voters dissatisfaction with the lowering of property taxes would take away from thier view that Christie's unpopularity is for reasons THEY dont like him.

I don't see this as a lie, they did not make any untruthful statements. What they did is omit a certain analysis as to why his numbers moved, as it didnt fit thier agenda.

It is not 100% honest, but thats what political debate has become in this country.

So in other words it is not a lie.

But by failure to include mitigating information it is intellectually dishonest.

I agree.

Until I broke it off many months ago, I had a running debate with a member who pulled quotation after quotation out of context for the purpose of trashing an individual. When I challenged the member to put the quotations into their full context to illustrate that this would change the inference he was making, he refused to do so. I am reasonably certain the member despised that individual. But he was being intellectually dishonest in his criticism of him.

 

[Valerie]

When you repeatedly reply to someone who has been posting with you in a thread, and responding conscientiously to every single point you make, and you continually reply to them that they have not considered the topic with any intellectual honesty or that intellectual honesty requires that they see things your way, then yeah that comes across as saying that person is being dishonest...




A couple of people translated that into meaning Foxy called Valerie a liar...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ves-view-on-waterboarding-43.html#post3650107





FTR - I told Foxfyre privately that day that I understood and have no hard feelings...


I really tried not to make too big of a deal over it...

 

[Ravi]

If you claim that the intellectually honest will agree with your point, then you are implying that those that don't agree with your point are being dishonest.

So yes, that would be tantamount to calling someone a liar.

There are different types of intellectual dishonesty. For instance, basing your beliefs on fantasy means you are pretty much lying to yourself. But that's a subject for another thread.

 

[L.K.Eder]

If you claim that the intellectually honest will agree with your point, then you are implying that those that don't agree with your point are being dishonest.

So yes, that would be tantamount to calling someone a liar.

There are different types of intellectual dishonesty. For instance, basing your beliefs on fantasy means you are pretty much lying to yourself. But that's a subject for another thread.

it is a totally cowardly smarmy tactic.

everyone who is beautiful, intelligent and powerful will agree with me about that.

 

[Ravi]

If you claim that the intellectually honest will agree with your point, then you are implying that those that don't agree with your point are being dishonest.

So yes, that would be tantamount to calling someone a liar.

There are different types of intellectual dishonesty. For instance, basing your beliefs on fantasy means you are pretty much lying to yourself. But that's a subject for another thread.

it is a totally cowardly smarmy tactic.

everyone who is beautiful, intelligent and powerful will agree with me about that.

ITA!