What is "intellectual dishonesty"? Is there truly such thing?

Question

I hear it again and again in political debates, and just heard it in a debate between Paul Begala and Torie Clark, when the latter made such an accusation. What does it mean?

Can people gratuitously accuse others of being "intellectually dishonest" when they disagree with the other politically? Why is it that people can't simply say "I disagree with you" and why?

Answer 1

There is no such thing as "intellectual dishonesty". That's just one more way of attacking opposing views, just like saying that you're unpatriotic or a traitor if you disagree with certain people's viewpoints. It is just that simple.

If you watch enough political talk shows, you will see that Conservatives tend to pin that label, as I am yet to hear a moderate or a liberal politician or commentaror ever use that term.

Answer 2

Intellectual dishonesty is just a step short of actual fraud or lying.

It is saying something in a particular way, such that the people listening intentionally coming to a false conclusion, because the speaker knows that the listeners will make faulty assumptions based on the statement as phrased.

Example: "I did not have sex with that woman." Using a dictionary or legal definition of "sex" to mean sexual intercourse, that statement is literally true. But the speaker knows that most listeners are going to assume he was talking about all types of sexual contact or conduct. It's a half-truth, relying on people's expected (and incorrect) assumptions.

Another example: "We know where the WMDs are located." When what the speaker really means is, "we think we know where they might be, but nobody can prove us wrong because we can change what we meant by the term after the fact."

You can disagree with a conclusion or an opinion. But when something is presented as a fact, and that fact is not objectively provable (or provable, and not true), then that is being dishonest.... but doing it intelligently.

Answer 3

Per Wikipedia:

Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false. Rhetoric is misused to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. It is an obfuscatory way to say "you're lying".

Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty

Answer 4

It basically means You're lying to yourself. It's when you are trying to reach a certain conclusion and ignore logic to do so. It's hard to come up with an example, but you will see some on the board... Like people saying, "Fvcking Republican ba$tard$! They always talk shlt on us Democrats! Why can't they use a little fvcking tact, stupid fvcking a$$holes!"

It's like hypocrisy... the idea is that, for some psychological reason, you don't notice it. It's logic that doesn't work, and you should realize it, but you don't let yourself, because it doesn't match your beliefs.

Answer 5

Many Israeli lobby Think-tank groups in Washington are intellectually dishonest for years

Answer 6

"Intellectual dishonesty" would be if someone (say a bible-thumping right-wing radio host) were to constantly rail against "liberal druggies", and it was suddenly discovered that he was a junkie being treated for addiction. LOL.