Zone1 Intellectual Honesty

[Foxfyre]

I'm sorry but you define intellectual honesty in a way that simply doesn't comport to the actual definition of the term.

Honestly believing and intellectual honesty simply aren't synonyms. I illustrated that by giving one of the definitions I found. But I could have used any. I illustrated that by using your hypothetical, and I illustrated that by using your arguments in this OP.

Honestly believing in something means having a sincere conviction, but intellectual honesty requires a willingness to question, challenge, and seek truth—even when it contradicts personal beliefs. Someone can genuinely believe something, but if they ignore evidence or refuse to consider counterarguments, they’re not practicing intellectual honesty.

What you are describing is a scientific mind. What I am describing is that if you offer a truth it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as you know it.

The flat Earther can be 100% intellectually honest when he says "the Earth is flat and I've seen the proof."

He is not being intellectually honest however when he says "the Earth is flat and I've seen the proof" but doesn't include the mitigating information that the 'proof' he had been using as evidence was created and manipulated and was not proof at all.

 

[forkup]

What you are describing is a scientific mind. What I am describing is that if you offer a truth it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as you know it.

The flat Earther can be 100% intellectually honest when he says "the Earth is flat and I've seen the proof."

He is not being intellectually honest however when he says "the Earth is flat and I've seen the proof" but doesn't include the mitigating information that the 'proof' he had been using as evidence was created and manipulated and was not proof at all.

Really how can you come up with "the earth is flat" and not ignore everything that contradicts it? If you truly are searching for the truth. Explain that one to me. I think it requires it to do so by definition.

Again, you are simply redefining the meaning of the term. Unless of course you can support your definition of the term.

As you are choosing to ignore about half of what I'm saying to you. Something that by the way, and not to be a dick is also being intellectually dishonest. Ignoring the things you have a hard time disputing and simply focusing on the things you feel you can is not being intellectually honest. It has to do with the whole "I'm wrong about something" principle you were talking about.

I can't compel you to concede anything. What I can do is make you aware that I'm aware you're doing it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really how can you come up with "the earth is flat" and not ignore everything that contradicts it? If you truly are searching for the truth. Explain that one to me. I think it requires it to do so by definition.

Again, you are simply redefining the meaning of the term. Unless of course you can support your definition of the term.

As you are choosing to ignore about half of what I'm saying to you. Something that by the way, and not to be a dick is also being intellectually dishonest. Ignoring the things you have a hard time disputing and simply focusing on the things you feel you can is not being intellectually honest

I don't think or even remotely suspect the Earth is flat. I know better. And could give a very lengthy and comprehensive extemporaneous argument for why the Earth is not flat.

I only acknowledge that there are people who sincerely believe the Earth is flat and who believe that they are 100% justified in believing that. That they have seen 'scientific' evidence to support that.

I use that particular analogy to illustrate the difference between being wrong about something and being intellectually dishonest about something. The true flat Earth believers are not being intellectually dishonest. They are just wrong.

 

[forkup]

only acknowledge that there are people who sincerely believe the Earth is flat and who believe that they are 100% justified in believing that. That they have seen 'scientific' evidence to support that.

Yes, and the only way they can do that is by ignoring, not disproving but simply ignoring, all evidence to the contrary. Something that is intellectually dishonest. Exactly like you are doing in this conversation when it comes to defining intellectual honesty.

The true flat Earth believers are not being intellectually dishonest. They are just wrong.

They are wrong AND they are intellectually dishonest. It's literally the only way for them to sustain their beliefs. There's simply no way one can defend the idea of a flat earth and be intellectually honest. One simply excludes the other.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, and the only way they can do that is by ignoring, not disproving but simply ignoring, all evidence to the contrary. Something that is intellectually dishonest.

They are wrong AND they are intellectually dishonest. It's literally the only way for them to sustain their beliefs. There's simply no way one can defend the idea of a flat earth and be intellectually honest. One simply excludes the other.

Again, and for the third time. You are redefining the term to fit your narrative.

You believe, I believe the 'scientific evidence' they present to support their belief is bogus.

They believe the 'scientific evidence' we present to support our belief is bogus.

Why is it I have to be the one redefining the term to fit my narrative and you are not?

 

[forkup]

Yes, and the only way they can do that is by ignoring, not disproving but simply ignoring, all evidence to the contrary. Something that is intellectually dishonest.

They are wrong AND they are intellectually dishonest. It's literally the only way for them to sustain their beliefs.

You believe, I believe the 'scientific evidence' they present to support their belief is bogus.

They believe the 'scientific evidence' we present to support our belief is bogus.

Why is it I have to be the one redefining the term to fit my narrative and you are not?

Because I'm claiming your understanding of the term intellectual honesty is faulty. I sourced why I think that. I would go as far as that being the main premise of the post you replied to.

Illustrated it by examples. And invited you to support your position. The only thing you are offering is the assertion that you believe that flat earthers aren't intellectually dishonest because they truly believe. And when I challenge that assertion you are simply reasserting it instead of supporting it. So, until and unless you can support your definition of it by more than assertions, something I have, I will assume you are simply redefining the term. And I'm not.

As for the assertion that both positions are equivalent. They are most assuredly not. Even if they think so. I suggest next time you discuss their belief you pay attention to the number of times they use fallacious arguments.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because I'm claiming your understanding of the term intellectual honesty is faulty. I sourced why I think that. I would go as far as that being the main premise of the post you replied to.

Illustrated it by examples. And invited you to support your position. The only thing you are offering is the assertion that you believe that flat earthers aren't intellectually dishonest because they truly believe. And when I challenge that assertion you are simply reasserting it instead of supporting it. So, until and unless you can support your definition of it by more than assertions, something I have, I will assume you are simply redefining the term. And I'm not.

As for the assertion that both positions are equivalent. They are most assuredly not. Even if they think so. I suggest next time you discuss their belief you pay attention to the number of times they use fallacious arguments.

Prove using any credible source that my understanding of intellectual honesty, as described in the OP, is faulty.

And then prove that your 'credible source' is credible.

And then prove the source you use to do that is a valid source.

And so on, so on, so on.

There is a subtle differentiation to be made between 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'honesty' and 'intellectual honesty.'

Trying to make them all the same is what is faulty.

That you believe me to be wrong is your privilege. But it is not evidence. it is not verifiable. It is not even debatable. It is simply what you believe.

You may be entirely intellectually honest in professing that belief. But it doesn't mean that you are not wrong in holding it.

 

[forkup]

Prove using any credible source that my understanding of intellectual honesty, as described in the OP, is faulty.

And then prove that your 'credible source' is credible.

And then prove the source you use to do that is a valid source.

And so on, so on, so on.

There is a subtle differentiation to be made between 'truth' and 'accuracy' and 'honesty' and 'intellectual honesty.'

Trying to them all the same is what is faulty.

That you believe me to be wrong is your privilege. But it is not evidence. it is not verifiable. It is not even debatable. It is simply what you believe.

You may be entirely intellectually honest in professing that belief. But it doesn't mean that you are not wrong in holding it.

You're setting an impossible standard, an infinite regress where every source requires another source to validate it. At some point, a shared framework for credibility is necessary. Instead of reasserting your definition, why not demonstrate why my source is invalid or engage with the standard definitions I’ve presented?

I've provided Are You Intellectually Honest? but I could also add multiple dictionary definitions supporting my position, including ,https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/intellectual-honesty Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia, and. What does Intellectual honesty mean? Meanwhile, you've provided none to support yours. If you can't source any authoritative definition that aligns with your claim, then insisting you're correct while dismissing all counter-evidence isn't just flawed reasoning it’s intellectually dishonest."

You’re also trying to shift the burden of proof. I’ve provided credible sources to support my definition of intellectual honesty, while you have provided none for yours. If you believe my sources are flawed, the burden is on you to prove that not on me to repeatedly validate already widely accepted definitions.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're setting an impossible standard, an infinite regress where every source requires another source to validate it. At some point, a shared framework for credibility is necessary. Instead of reasserting your definition, why not demonstrate why my source is invalid or engage with the standard definitions I’ve presented?

I've provided Are You Intellectually Honest? but I could also add multiple dictionary definitions supporting my position, including ,https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/intellectual-honesty Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia, and. What does Intellectual honesty mean? Meanwhile, you've provided none to support yours. If you can't source any authoritative definition that aligns with your claim, then insisting you're correct while dismissing all counter-evidence isn't just flawed reasoning it’s intellectually dishonest."

You’re also trying to shift the burden of proof. I’ve provided credible sources to support my definition of intellectual honesty, while you have provided none for yours. If you believe my sources are flawed, the burden is on you to prove that not on me to repeatedly validate already widely accepted definitions.

Okay. You're now I believe deliberately missing or ignoring the point made. I tried. Do have a lovely evening.

 

[forkup]

Okay. You're now I believe deliberately missing or ignoring the point made. I tried. Do have a lovely evening.

You claim I’m ignoring your point, yet I have spent hours asking you to support your argument or show where my reasoning is flawed. I have taken pains to respond to every point you made, even when I suspected they were made in bad faith. Instead of engaging with my arguments, you have repeatedly evaded them. In a discussion about intellectual honesty no less.

At first, I saw this as mere irony. Having gone through this exchange, it is clear that what you are engaging in is not just irony—it is deliberate, mindboggling hypocrisy. Intellectual honesty requires a willingness to engage with all relevant evidence, not selective dismissal of inconvenient facts.

Projection does not strengthen your position; it merely highlights how empty your claims of intellectual honesty are when confronted by someone who actually applies it.

My evening will be fine, but in your position, I wouldn’t feel good about mine knowing I had evaded direct engagement while claiming intellectual honesty.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm sorry but you define intellectual honesty in a way that simply doesn't comport to the actual definition of the term.

Honestly believing and intellectual honesty simply aren't synonyms. I illustrated that by giving one of the definitions I found. But I could have used any. I illustrated that by using your hypothetical, and I illustrated that by using your arguments in this OP.

Honestly believing in something means having a sincere conviction, but intellectual honesty requires a willingness to question, challenge, and seek truth—even when it contradicts personal beliefs. Someone can genuinely believe something, but if they ignore evidence or refuse to consider counterarguments, they’re not practicing intellectual honesty.

Foxfyre is desperate to defend her love of defence of Donald Trump and MAGA.

What you are describing is a scientific mind. What I am describing is that if you offer a truth it is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as you know it.

The flat Earther can be 100% intellectually honest when he says "the Earth is flat and I've seen the proof."

He is not being intellectually honest however when he says "the Earth is flat and I've seen the proof" but doesn't include the mitigating information that the 'proof' he had been using as evidence was created and manipulated and was not proof at all.

What you are describing is "rationalization" not intellectual honesty. You are rationalizing your beliefs, rather than defending them in a way that involves an honest search for the truth. Nor can you claim he's honest, or he's out to do what's best for the USA.

You cannot claim to be Trump supporter on the basis of "intellectual honesty". There is no rational way you can claim he's good for the nation, because there isn't a single piece of data to support that claim.

 

[Captain Caveman]

ZONE 1 everybody so keep it civil:

Keep it civil? You can ** that ****** ******* idea to you ******* *******.

Seriously though, experience has taught me that a Left leaning personality person can't show face.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the most prevalent forms of intellectual dishonesty arises from those in the throes of the fashionable transsexual fad.

I have yet to have a single one who will admit that a decade ago, they did not believe women had penises.

Are these people even sentient?

I suspect there is an element of intellectual dishonesty that is rampant within most aspects in that debate. The only reason a person would even argue that a biological male should have access to a gynecologist is to be PC on the record to his/her peers. I can't believe they honestly believe he needs that gynecologist.

Do they honestly believe sexually explicit reading material for young children is appropriate and defensible? Or do they strain at gnats to defend that and push aside their natural revulsion for that? Another example of intellectual dishonesty.

Do they honestly believe that failure to vet millions of migrants pouring into the country resulting in numerous dangerous gang members and other violent criminals being allowed to prey on the general population is the moral thing to do? Or do they pretend that risk isn't there in order to defend an open border policy and/or pretend there is no open border policy? Another example of intellectual dishonesty that suppresses what a person knows in favor of a different narrative.

 

[Foxfyre]

Keep it civil? You can ** that ****** ******* idea to you ******* *******.

Seriously though, experience has taught me that a Left leaning personality person can't show face.

What others do they do. What we choose to do is what we do. We can choose to be civil. Or not.

 

[Foxfyre]

Which is also a possibility. Just less likely.

Not in my experience. It's just that smart people tend to be more sophisticated in their intellectual dishonesty maybe.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I suspect there is an element of intellectual dishonesty that is rampant within most aspects that debate. The only reason a person would even argue that a biological male should have access to a gynecologist is to be PC on the record to his/her peers. I can't believe they honestly believe he needs that gynecologist.

Do they honestly believe sexually explicit reading material for young children is appropriate and defensible? Or do they strain at gnats to defend that and push aside their natural revulsion for that? Another example of intellectual dishonesty.

Do they honestly believe that failure to vet millions of migrants pouring into the country resulting in numerous dangerous gang members and other violent criminals being allowed to prey on the general population is the moral thing to do? Or do they pretend that risk isn't there in order to defend an open border policy and/or pretend there is no open border policy? Another example of intellectual dishonesty that suppresses what a person knows in favor of a different narrative.

There is only one real reason involved -- the need to conform.

It outweighs all else in their deluded minds.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'll admit for "standing corrected" but I sure as hell won't apologize for it.

I generally don't apologize when I had valid reason to have believed what I believed. But when I have reason to know my belief was almost certainly wrong I can admit that I have come to think differently about that. As you said, I can say I stand corrected.

I think that is especially important when it comes to the credibility/reputation of other people. Once, when Twitter was still Twitter, I saw a meme with Nancy Pelosi saying something stupid/awful I knew she never said. So I responded with the Snopes fact check debunking that quote as hers. I also quipped that I wasn't saying she shouldn't be hung, but she should be hung for a crime she actually committed.

Most accusing her were then silent. A very few acknowledged they were wrong. One or two blasted me for defending her. But at the end of the day intellectual honesty requires that we be honest and accurate if we accuse another person.

(As an aside: Twitter locked my account until I took down that tweet. Said it was 'harassment'. That in itself I think was intellectually dishonest given the context of the situation.)

But back to this discussion:
I also can move from a position I'm pretty sure about to a position of I don't know. I try to be intellectually honest about that too.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is only one real reason involved -- the need to conform.

It outweighs all else in their deluded minds.

I don't disagree with you but there is a very fine line here between intentional dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty.

With intentional dishonesty a person doesn't care that they know it is bogus, they just want to hurt whoever or whatever they accuse.

With intellectual dishonesty they are trying desperately to make everything fit with what they very much want to be true. And they dismiss or omit anything that could interfere with that.