In this post, I'd like to
address what is intellectual dishonesty and why motivates others to
engage in it. (It's never us, right? Right?) What I won't do is list
forms of intellectual dishonesty. While this can be fun, there are
lots of websites that do this. Here are some links to a few of them:
Obligatory
Wiki link on Intellectual Honesty; another
blog on honesty; same
blogger on dishonesty; a nice list of forms of dishonesty; and, a
list of fallacious arguments.
It perhaps goes without
saying that intellectual dishonesty is the opposite of intellectual
honesty. Perhaps it is worth noting why the term exists at all. That
is, why do we use the term intellectual dishonesty rather than simply
dishonesty. When people are dishonest, they are dishonest about why
they are late to work or who broke the vase in the living room.
Dishonesty is lying to protect one's interests whether we perceive
those interests rightly or wrongly. Honesty is valuing truth above
one's interests, or perhaps finding truth one's single best interest.
These basic definitions
provide a starting point on the subject of intellectual dishonesty.
Intellectual honesty is valuing truth even to the point of risking
one's most cherished beliefs. It is being able to follow a discussion
to its bitter end with regard only for truth. Intellectual
dishonesty, then, is the avoidance of the truth. (The above links
catalog the various ways in which this is done.) I think why we are
dishonest in general gives us insight into why we are intellectually
dishonest. We are, in fact, afraid of what we might find.
I think it worth noting here
that there are different types of us who are intellectually
dishonest. The first is the type I've already mentioned—those of us
protecting our cherished beliefs, or rather protecting ourselves from
the loss of those beliefs. The second sort is the professional liar.
This is the sort that engages in debates for show. A behavior of this
sort of person is to reuse arguments that, by all accounts, were
completely demolished in a previous debate.
Most of us don't have these
discussions every day. We don't face the risk of watching our
foundational beliefs sink into an abyss. These are the discussions
that occur at the lunch table or on-line. Is the concept of
anthropogenic global warming a conspiracy? Is the republican party or
the democratic party better for the United States? Is there a god?
I don't have much sympathy
for the professionally dishonest. However, I have walked the line of
intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to protect my beliefs. I don't
know when it happened, but at some point I realized I cared about the
truth and I cared enough to
abandon cherished beliefs if necessary. Early on in my existence on
message boards, I did dodge the truth. I didn't do it consciously. If
someone defines faith as “believing things without evidence”, you
switch to the definition of faith as trust. If you are pinned down
about faith, you say it takes as more faith to be an atheist. Not
only have you changed the definition of faith (known as
equivocation), you put the non-believer on the defensive. Faith is
certainly a bad thing and atheists have it! Hold on a second, didn't
the conversation start on the assumption that faith is a virtue? In
any case, my experience was that the bob-and-weave came naturally. It
is what humans do. Changing our beliefs and our understanding of the
world is an uncomfortable thing. We avoid it.
I
think I got over most of it. Largely I think it came about by
observing others on the same side of the argument get raked over the
coals for patterns of argument that I had heard myself use. (It is
interesting that I couldn't see this when I was the one arguing.)
When I recognized this in others and could then correlate it with
myself, I abandoned this pattern.
To
some extent, what I want to encourage is recognition that
intellectual dishonesty is something we as humans are prone to. We
must be vigilant that we aren't engaging in the same patterns we
deplore in others. Given that this occurs in us, we should be patient
with other while being persistent in pointing out the errors.
So
why are heavy things dark? Because they aren't light. (Equivocation.)
I've
run across the attached graphic which provides good rules for
discussion. (Possible source.)
No comments:
Post a Comment