Talk:Intellectual dishonesty
|
|
Yep ! A quite valid and timely page necessary to remind one and all of their true sources of information. Norwikian 09:21, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I hope we can keep this a revealing analysis of how intellectual dishonesty works, and not let it degenerate into a mere Slam List! Wetman 09:24, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You write: "whether the intention to deceive the reader can be proved or not is immaterial." An error cannot be classed as "intellectual dishonesty" unless an intent to deceive can be established. This should be more clearly expressed. Adam 10:38, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- We know from the judicial system how difficult it is to prove intent. Intellectual dishonesty is not the same as fraud. If I justify my actions to myself, based on a quibble, I am being intellectually dishonest. What though if I set up an impossible criterion for judging intellectual dihonesty, with the thought that I could later disallow any example that did not appeal to me? Wouldn't that be intellectual dishonesty? Wetman 12:39, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
One of the principles of the judicial system is "innocent until proven guilty." Intellectual dishonesty, applied to the fields of acdemic or intellectual production, is not a quibble, it is a serious accusation, which if proved can end a person's career. It must be proved, and the fact that it is difficult to prove it doesn't mean that the standard of proof can be lowered. Intent must be shown, and if it can't then the person can be convicted only of error or perhaps carelessness, but not dishonesty.
Caveat lector. So much for that... Wetman 15:18, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
removed reference to missing examples --Evan 22:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) The examples that follow will doubtless elicit a thrill of schadenfreude, but they are not intended as a mere Wall of Shame. Simply to label as intellectually dishonest any biased expression with which we do not agree is not sufficient (and should result in speedy removal from this set of examples). But to dispassionately analyze the self-deceptions or hidden agendas, the spurious justifications for fraud, and the rhetorical devices through which intellectual dishonesty is expressed, is a wholesome exercise, both for Wikipedians and Wikipedia readers.
I always thought that intellectual dishonesty could also be unintentional (due to self deception) and does not necessarily have to be conscious deception. Andries 08:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)