Intellectual dishonesty

Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false, or is the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to insure the truthfulness of the position. Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. [cite web|url=http://www.123exp-beliefs.com/t/00804199459/|title=Intellectual dishonesty (in philosophy)|date=2008-07-01|publisher=Enlexica, Inc.|accessdate=2008-07-16] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.

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.

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

See also

* In specific fields:
** Academic dishonesty
** Journalism scandals
** Scientific misconduct
* Anti-intellectualism
* Ethics
* Self-deception

Footnotes

References

*Colin McNickle, "More intellectual dishonesty on guns", December 15, 2002, The Pittsburg Tribune Review, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_107471.html]
*Editorial, "Intellectual dishonesty", Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2006, [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961381260&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull]