10 signs of intellectual honesty and dishonesty

[revelarts]

I'll post these without comment 1st

10 signs of intellectual honesty

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said. (http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/critical-thinking/)

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.
While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

-by Mike Gene

[revelarts]

10 signs of intellectual dishonesty


1. Arrogance or “I am the messenger of truth”. Look for arguments that send the following messages:


“What I am telling you ARE the facts and these facts have, and always will, withstand any test.”
“ Anybody that disagrees with ‘us’ is either stupid or is trying to undermine ‘our’ dedication and hard work.”
“ They have access to the same evidence, but they either ignore it or deliberately misinterpret it to suit their own agenda or hypothesis.”


2. Handwaving or “Your views have no merit”. Look for ‘arguments’ that dismiss other views out of hand. Often accompanied by Sign #1 with the opponent usually being dismissed – not specifically their argument.


3. Unwavering commitment or “I know I am right – why bother arguing?” Anybody who refuses to accept that they may not be 100% correct, or might be looking at the evidence through their own preferred colour of glasses is not being honest to themselves or to their readers/listeners.


4. Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .” Anybody who refuses to admit that their argument is weak in an area and, worse still, avoids answering difficult questions in that area is being intellectually dishonest. If they don’t ignore the question, these people are easily recognised from their efforts to change the subject.


5. Never admitting error or “I am/We are right – regardless of your evidence”. These are the people who will never admit that they are wrong – ever – regardless of clear evidence that demonstrates their error. See Sign #1


6. Employing double standards or “Your evidence is unacceptable (because it’s your evidence)”. This is a question of how high the bar is set for the acceptance of evidence – the bar is set at a much higher level for the other party, while it is set far lower for his/her own evidence.


7. Argumentum ad hominem or “You’re a [insert label/stereotype here] . . . and you have a secret agenda” This is a favoured approach used by those who might be arguing from a weak position. It is typically employed to avoid answering a difficult question (Sign #4) or used in conjunction with handwaving (Sign #2).


8. Destroying a straw man or “You might say that, but how do you explain . . . ?”. Usually a case of shifting the subject and attacking the opponent’s position on that, unrelated or remotely related, topic. This is usually employed in an effort to avoid a question (Sign #4) or when the speaker/writer doesn’t have the knowledge to address the issue.


9. Ignoring the principles of critical thinking. Relying on one source of information – usually without question. Anybody who only considers information from a single book, article, paper, video – or any number of these from sources that are known to support that person’s views or opinions is being intellectually dishonest. Sign #1 usually applies in this case.


10. Ignoring [partial] defeat or See Sign #1 An intellectually dishonest speaker/writer will NEVER admit that the other side has found a hole in their argument. You will never see them congratulate an opponent on finding a flaw in their argument and they will use all of the other signs if necessary to draw your attention away from the subject.


Bonus
10 signs of intellectual LAZINESS


JC’s list of 10 signs of intellectual laziness
Intellectual DIShonesty is certainly rampant on the internet. In terms of climate science, I think that intellectual laziness is the bigger problem. Here is my characterization of the signs of intellectual laziness.


1. Oversimplifying a complex problem, and drawing highly confident conclusions from the simplified analysis.


2. Strong personal convictions that are based not upon an individual’s personal examination of the evidence, but rather on the second-order evidence of the existence of a consensus.


3. Failure to continually question and challenge your assumptions.


4. Inadequate attention to characterizing uncertainty and ambiguities.


5. Cherry picking evidence in presenting your arguments; i.e. failure to present evidence both for and against your arguments.


6. Tribalism that excludes viewpoints from ‘outsiders’.


7. Failure to explicitly place your research and its implications in a broader context of previous scientific research
Ok, I only made it to #7; the others I was coming up with variants of signs that were already mentioned. I’m sure you can think of others


JC summary: While there is nothing really new here that hasn’t been discussed on previous Climate Etc. posts under the ethics tag (http://judithcurry.com/category/ethics/), there are some fresh perspectives presented here. In any event, we should regularly remind ourselves of these principles as we get caught up in the debate du jour.



In closing, this statement from Mike Gene bears repeating:
While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.



http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

[tailfins]

In practice, your yardstick separates software teams that produce maintainable, robust (that's mean well-functioning) software from ones that produce bug-laden software and are always "busy" with non-productive activity (aka "perception management").

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'll post these with comment 1st

10 signs of intellectual honesty

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said. (http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/critical-thinking/)

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.
While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.

-by Mike Gene

You are not going to get all ten at a political site because the political bias is built into the member and that's why they participate at the site.
Next , very few are ever going to admit to points made by their opposition because its a sign of defeat in their minds of their own argument.
Best one can do is present the truth as they see it and only change from that principled stand once facts give new insight.
I am very far right but have done that in the past here even with my deeply held beliefs and stubbornness as a character trait.
What I will never do is embrace lies to appease, hold back to get along and mellow my core principles to vainly try to impress anybody.
Honor and integrity, each person has their own level of each.
Sadly with too many these days that level on both counts is near zero.
And that's true of the entire world not just here at this site!-Tyr

[revelarts]

In practice, your yardstick separates software teams that produce maintainable, robust (that's mean well-functioning) software from ones that produce bug-laden software and are always "busy" with non-productive activity.

Designing functional things is unforgiving and clear that way.
But people's thinking processes are much more open to error, bias, and fuzzy thinking in various areas but still manages muddles through most of days.... weeks, years ... life.

[revelarts]

You are not going to get all ten at a political site because the political bias is built into the member and that's why they participate at the site.
Next , very few are ever going to admit to points made by their opposition because its a sign of defeat in their minds of their own argument.
Best one can do is present the truth as they see it and only change from that principled stand once facts give new insight.
I am very far right but have done that in the past here even with my deeply held beliefs and stubbornness as a character trait.
What I will never do is embrace lies to appease, hold back to get along and mellow my core principles to vainly try to impress anybody.
Honor and integrity, each person has their own level of each.
Sadly with too many these days that level on both counts is near zero.
And that's true of the entire world not just here at this site!-Tyr

Politics and politicians aren't honest you say? c'mon Tyr.:cheers2:
people attach to them in a tribal fashion maybe?

And yep these go for the world on nearly ever question,
what's described here is what i call clear honest thinking and frankly we all have to force ourselves to do it.
It seems emotions ,desires, fears, biases, personality, laziness and tradition run in 1st and try to tell us what's "the truth" BEFORE we "think".

[aboutime]

rev. With all of this, and everything you posted in this thread. It appears you have gone out of your way to warn the rest of us to beware of YOU. You qualify for each of the 10 signs you are now insisting..Only You know, are signs of intellectual dishonesty. You should take your own advice before doling it out to everyone else.

[tailfins]

rev. With all of this, and everything you posted in this thread. It appears you have gone out of your way to warn the rest of us to beware of YOU. You qualify for each of the 10 signs you are now insisting..Only You know, are signs of intellectual dishonesty. You should take your own advice before doling it out to everyone else.

Without referring to any points of view, I would say that revelarts' posts are well researched, providing information I didn't already know.

[tailfins]

Designing functional things is unforgiving and clear that way.
But people's thinking processes are much more open to error, bias, and fuzzy thinking in various areas but still manages muddles through most of days.... weeks, years ... life.

What's amazing is that the intellectually dishonest will not let functional failures deter them. For example if you have an executive that's invested in something that was built offshore on the cheap or a development environment purchased because the sales rep had nice tits, it's common to use a movie using a "happy path" for a demo to the leadership team instead of actually running the software for the demo. Hours spent on a slick looking presentation with lots of screenshots is also a popular "deliverable" for a perception manager.

[revelarts]

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z23/cnredd/cnredd174/discourse_zps63113ced.jpg

[red states rule]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAYsIIdpcTV-MkvH7MG6nLxD3YRS-6Wd3ZiQMotKSiogUB1L53Uw