Intellectual dishonesty

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Open poll or discussion:
Is the charge of intellectual dishonesty a valid criticism in the context of a debate? Yes or no?

Or is it simply calling your opponent a liar? Yes or no?

I ask this because a while ago I was in a debate and after presenting my argument I was charged with intellectual dishonesty. I had believed that my premises were sound, terms were clear, and I believed that my conclusions followed from my premises.

The problem was that he had presented a piece of evidence that I had neither seen nor considered. Upon presenting it he demonstrated that I had not considered all the information and therefore my argument fallacious.

I knew him to be a genuine thinker. I didn’t take what he said as a judgement on my character. He obviously had shown me that I hadn’t done my due dilligence.

I had no other reason to object so I ceded the argument.

The other day I was in a similar forum going over Lumen Gentium chapter 15 with another Catholic. After we both presented our arguments I used the same charge on them after demonstrating further proofs. My opponent went straight into the ad-hominum attacks and still insists that I called him a liar?

So am I crazy or is this an invalid charge? I’m not talking about the belief of purposeful deception on my opponent’s part; I’m speaking of pointing out self-deception on the part of my opponent.

Or am I missing something?

 

[albertus_magnus]

Open poll or discussion:
Is the charge of intellectual dishonesty a valid criticism in the context of a debate? Yes or no?

Yes.

Or is it simply calling your opponent a liar? Yes or no?

No.

I think it’s somewhat premature to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty immediately, and if something that like were to occur it could easily be seen as insulting. It’s better to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they misread or overlooked the evidence.

That having been said, I have seen several cases of clear intellectual dishonesty where someone repeatedly ignored arguments and evidence and kept arguing with their same long-debunked assertions while simultaneously claiming that they were going unrefuted and accusing their opponent of failing to make a response. That wasn’t the best, and while those people probably would have taken offense at being called intellectually dishonest, it would have been an accurate charge.

 

[Muze]

Open poll or discussion:
Is the charge of intellectual dishonesty a valid criticism in the context of a debate? Yes or no?

Or is it simply calling your opponent a liar? Yes or no?

It is not calling out an outright liar.

Intellectual honesty has to do with embracing all know facts and truths in a debate. Thus, intellectual dishonesty simply means that one is intentionally ignoring obvious facts or truths in making an argument.

For instance, if we are in an argument about the utility of automobiles, and I claim that they are inefficient because the body creates a large amount of friction when it comes into contact with pavement, I’m not lying, per se, as the statement is true, but it is intellectually dishonest because I do not knowledge that the vast majority of the time, a car’s body doesn’t spark against the pavement because of (the fact that) most have tires, and I know that they do.

That’s the difference between dishonesty and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[empther]

albertus magnus wrote:

I have seen several cases of clear intellectual dishonesty where someone
repeatedly ignored arguments and evidence
and kept arguing with their same long-debunked assertions
while simultaneously claiming that they were going unrefuted
and accusing their opponent of failing to make a response.

Right on, albertus !!

I’ve seen this constantly, especially the first point you make.
People will ignore points that contradict their theories.
For example,
in Linux’s recent flurry of pantheist threads,
he started one argument with:

1. Nothing comes out of nothing.

Well, that seems to make sense. What’s wrong with it?

It’s true in the natural world, which is what makes it seem to make sense.
But it ignores the possibility of the supernatural world.
It ignores the possibility of an omnipotent God who creates something from nothing, or more accurately phrased, he creates something ***where there was nothing.

---

Linux ignores these possibilities because they go against his “esse” theories.