Difference between revisions of "Intellectual dishonesty"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎top: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.foxnews.com → https://www.foxnews.com)
 
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
*There is a tradition in politics that is similar to one in the legal profession: When evidence supports your position, make your argument based on the evidence, but when it argues against your position, ignore the evidence and appeal to emotion. [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/20/climate-change-cultists-vs-scientific-evidence/]
 
*There is a tradition in politics that is similar to one in the legal profession: When evidence supports your position, make your argument based on the evidence, but when it argues against your position, ignore the evidence and appeal to emotion. [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/20/climate-change-cultists-vs-scientific-evidence/]
 +
 +
== See also ==
 +
 +
*[[Deceit]]
 +
 +
Antonym:
 +
 +
*[[Honesty]]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 19:49, January 25, 2025

Intellectual dishonesty is lying about or concealing one's own beliefs.

Charles Murray provides an example of liberal intellectual dishonesty:

In their heart of hearts, intellectual elites, especially liberal ones, have two nasty secrets regarding IQ. First, they really believe that IQ is the be-all and end-all of human excellence and that someone with a low IQ is inferior. Second, they are already sure that the black - white IQ difference is predominantly genetic and that this is a calamity -- such a calamity indeed that it must not be spoken about, even to oneself. To raise these issues holds a mirror up to the elites' most desperately denied inner thoughts.[1]

Intellectual dishonesty often arises when incentives exist for people to advocate stances that they know to be wrong. For instance, handlers[Who says?] of political candidates may encourage them to adopt positions that will be popular with the people, regardless of what their personal opinions may be.

  • There is a tradition in politics that is similar to one in the legal profession: When evidence supports your position, make your argument based on the evidence, but when it argues against your position, ignore the evidence and appeal to emotion. [1]

See also

Antonym:

References