Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Is "Intellectual Dishonesty"?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 1 of 49 (145569)
09-29-2004 5:54 AM


I was listening to Alan Colmes on the radio tonight and he had a caller near the end accuse him of "intellectual dishonesty" due to Colmes' propensity to demand a definition of "intellectual dishonesty" from callers who accuse him of being intellectually dishonest. In general, Colmes' claims that those who toss out the phrase really mean, "You don't agree with me."
The caller asked if Colmes could ever think that a person truly is "intellectually dishonest." Could he even define the phrase? Colmes came up with "hypocrisy" and while I agree with Colmes' basic premise (most people who claim "intellectual dishonesty" really mean "You don't agree with me"), I don't agree with his definition.
To me, "intellectual dishonesty" is when a person takes a position that is clearly incorrect, treats it as correct, and makes an argument based upon that faulty premise.
F'rinstance, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that radiometric dating is flawed on a fundamental level. This is because for that claim to be true, a whole slew of independent processes must all come up with the same wrong answer in repeated trials where their errors cannot possibly match.
As an example, suppose you wanted to measure how big a room is.
One method would be to take a meterstick and physically measure it. A possible error that can come into this process is that if you have to pick up the stick and move it in order to get all the way across the room, you need to be very careful to make sure that you're keeping on a straight line. Little deviations from each time you pick the stick up introduce errors in the final calculation.
Plus, you need to eyeball the measurement at the end. Those ticks on the meterstick only go so far and if the length of the room falls between the ticks, you need to estimate where it actually falls.
A second method would be to use an acoustic method. You put a sound source on one end of the room and measure the amount of time it takes to get an echo from the other side of the room. By comparing the time to the speed of sound, you can calculate the size of the room. Possible errors in this method, however, deal with the variability of the speed of sound. While we can be fairly certain that in a typical room with static air that the sound will travel uniformly, variations in the air will affect the measurement.
A similar method would be to use an optical method. You put a light source on one end of the room and measure the amount of time it takes to get a reflection from the other side of the room. By comparing the time to the speed of light, you can calculate the size of the room. Possible errors in this method, however, deal with gravitational effects. The speed of light is not nearly as sensitive to changes in atmospheric pressure as the speed of sound, so that isn't much of an issue. Instead, we have gravitational effects to worry about.
Now, if we find that each of these methods comes up with a length of the room of about 5.67 meters give or take a centimeter at worst, by what right can we claim that the concept of "measurement" is invalid? Each of these methods has a way to introduce an error in the result, but the sources of those errors are independent of each other or so vastly different in scope as to be independent.
The only way to claim that "measurement" is wrong and yet still have each method arrive at the same answer is to claim that each method was wrong precisely such that they all arrived at the same wrong answer.
But if we then use each method on different rooms of many different sizes and they all agree with each other within a centimeter, how can it possibly be that they're all wrong? The errors introduced will scale with the various room sizes.
For example, the Farenheit scale and the Celsius scale do not have the same size of a degree of temperature. However, the Farenheit scale and the Celsius scale do share a common point: -40. When it is -40F, it is also -40C. But other than that single point, the two do not match anywhere else.
The point is that while we might say that the various methods for measuring a room might all incorrectly agree on a certain size, there is no way that they could all incorrectly agree on every size. The degrees of error introduced by each method are not on the same scale nor are they triggered by the same events.
This is what I mean by "intellectual dishonesty." I would contrast this with "hypocrisy" such as those who claim that genetic analysis of organisms cannot be used to determine that species A is an ancestor of species B (thus denying evolution) when those same people don't have a problem with paternity testing. Since the techniques used are based upon the same premises, how is it a process that can determine who the father is cannot be used to determine who the ancestor is?
What say you all? What do you think "intellectual dishonesty" is?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mammuthus, posted 09-29-2004 6:25 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2004 1:34 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 09-29-2004 2:51 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6476 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 2 of 49 (145574)
09-29-2004 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rrhain
09-29-2004 5:54 AM


I think that basically all forms of "strawman" arguments are a form of intellectual dishonesty. If one ascribes a false definition to a theory i.e. that abiogenesis and evolution are the same, and then claims therefore the theory is false because the evidence gathered does not address the strawman theory, one is dishonest. It also tends to demonstrate that the person constructing the strawman arguement is unable to assail the actual theory and must therefore resort to mischaracterization. Again, dishonesty as opposed to hypocrisy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2004 5:54 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 1:54 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 49 (145662)
09-29-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rrhain
09-29-2004 5:54 AM


What do you think "intellectual dishonesty" is?
I've always thought of it as a situation where one begins an argument with certain presuppositions, as we all do, but towards the end, attacks a presupposition made by their opponent that they themselves support.
If that makes any sense. Maybe that's more of a "hypocrisy" thing?
Is Colmes one of the Hannity and Colmes guys? I can't remember which of those guys is the asshole and which is the idiot.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-29-2004 12:34 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2004 5:54 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 09-29-2004 1:39 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 5 by Zhimbo, posted 09-29-2004 1:54 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 7 by Zhimbo, posted 09-29-2004 1:54 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 4 of 49 (145668)
09-29-2004 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
09-29-2004 1:34 PM


[...]
[Zhimbo made an error. Zhimbo's real post coming up next]
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-29-2004 12:40 PM
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-29-2004 12:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2004 1:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 5 of 49 (145678)
09-29-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
09-29-2004 1:34 PM


Colmes is the idiot. Hannity is the asshole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2004 1:34 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 6 of 49 (145679)
09-29-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Mammuthus
09-29-2004 6:25 AM


I'd expand upon that, to state that intellectual dishonesty is adopting a false position or misleading - either yours or one that is supposedly your opponents' - when you know that it is false.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Mammuthus, posted 09-29-2004 6:25 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 7 of 49 (145680)
09-29-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
09-29-2004 1:34 PM


[...]argh!
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-29-2004 12:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2004 1:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2004 1:56 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 49 (145682)
09-29-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Zhimbo
09-29-2004 1:54 PM


Ah, gotcha.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Zhimbo, posted 09-29-2004 1:54 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 9 of 49 (145697)
09-29-2004 2:40 PM


Evolutionists Dating Methods Intellectually Dishonest
How does one honestly believe the Evolutionists are being Intellectually honest, their theory (TOE)rests on the dating of the fossil imprint, fossils, by the sediment layers that entombed them (based on what), etc...
Answer: the evolutionists believe by faith that the fossil is as old as the sediments that entombed them, because a fossil imprint has no C14 they had the need to make this leap of faith that the imprint is as old as the sediments that imprinted the fossil, they really are not dating the fossil imprint, fossil, etc...
This message has been edited by whatever, 09-29-2004 03:20 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 2:48 PM johnfolton has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 10 of 49 (145700)
09-29-2004 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
09-29-2004 2:40 PM


Re:
Thank you for giving an example of my position.
You see, whatever knows very well that people who believe in evolution don't date old fossils based on C14 dating and have many other methods instead that they use to date fossils, most of which have built-in error checking, etc. And some date layers, while others date the fossils, and they often are both used, and almost always match up.
In short, whatever knows that what he was stating was not what scientists believe, but presented it anyway. Consequently, he was giving us a good example of intellectual dishonesty. Thank you, whatever.
This message has been edited by Rei, 09-29-2004 01:52 PM

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 09-29-2004 2:40 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 09-29-2004 3:16 PM Rei has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 11 of 49 (145702)
09-29-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rrhain
09-29-2004 5:54 AM


Besides the position that you described, I also see the use of arguments that are clearly false to support a position.
For example, anti-gay rights advocates continue to use Leviticus to say that "god hates fags." Anyone with the most basic knowledge of the bible should know that most of Leviticus is simply out of date. Besides condeming homosexuality, it also endorses slavery, burning people alive, and a whole bunch of other crap that we know are wrong today. Yet, people like the rat and whatever continue to use Leviticus for some reason that is beyond me.
That is intellectual dishonesty.

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2004 5:54 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 2:53 PM coffee_addict has replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 12 of 49 (145703)
09-29-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by coffee_addict
09-29-2004 2:51 PM


Hey - the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination! End of story, case closed. If we allow homosexuality, we'll have to allow other abominations, like eating shellfish.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 09-29-2004 2:51 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by coffee_addict, posted 09-29-2004 3:11 PM Rei has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 13 of 49 (145713)
09-29-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rei
09-29-2004 2:53 PM


Actually, I love shellfish. I grew up in a very tropical coastal area. I love seafood in general.

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 2:53 PM Rei has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 14 of 49 (145716)
09-29-2004 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Rei
09-29-2004 2:48 PM


Evolutionists Dating Methods Intellectually Dishonest
Rei, How do you date a fossil imprint, if nothing remains but the imprint, or the bones that has no C14 remaining within the bones, what other dating method do they use to date bones, etc...
P.S. Granted life grows from the sediments, but that does not mean the fossils entombed are the age of the substances they grew from, is not that why they date rocks by other atomic decay methodologies, and organic life by C14, proven by Andrew Snelling with a petrified wood sample sandwiched between two basalt lava outflow layers that the organic life dated between dated thousands of years while the basalt layers above and below, dated millions of years old (meaning the petrified organic wood fossil could not be both young and old)(creationists realize the basalt dating is a bogus way of dating fossils as Snelling proved), but the Evolutionists continue to date the fossil by the various sediment, lava rock and not the fossils, which is Intellectually Dishonest, etc...
The way I understand the shell fish eating was that it was considered an unclean creature, which we now know to be true, causing birth defects(heavy metal accumulator's), etc...
This message has been edited by whatever, 09-29-2004 06:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 2:48 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Cthulhu, posted 09-29-2004 3:23 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 16 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 3:31 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 38 by Nighttrain, posted 09-29-2004 7:34 PM johnfolton has replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 15 of 49 (145718)
09-29-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by johnfolton
09-29-2004 3:16 PM


Re:
The way I understand the shell fish eating was that it was considered an unclean creature, which we now know to be true, causing birth defects(heavy metal accumulator's), etc...
Which, incidentally, is only because of the heavy metals that we dump into the water. Before we dumped waste into the ocean, shellfish were fine to eat.

Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Idiot" Hovind's website
Idiot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 09-29-2004 3:16 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rei, posted 09-29-2004 3:33 PM Cthulhu has not replied
 Message 21 by johnfolton, posted 09-29-2004 3:50 PM Cthulhu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024