« Hand Wringing By The 9/11 Commission | Main | Reliable Ol' Krugman »
August 18, 2005
Intellectual Dishonesty
Keith Burgess-Jackson writes about intellectual dishonesty:
The commitment to truth imposes discipline on intellectuals. It rules out any methods that are not reliable in producing truth. It casts suspicion on emotions. It imposes strict standards on the investigation, discovery, analysis, and presentation of facts. It requires logical consistency (for if two propositions are inconsistent, then at least one of them is false). It prefers the simpler account to the more complex account, other things being equal. It prohibits certain fallacies, such as evaluating a belief on the basis of its origin and dismissing claims or arguments on the basis of the personal character of those who make them. It requires charity in interpretation, which means, among other things, giving the benefit of the doubt to one’s interlocutors. Intellectually honest people focus on propositions and arguments, not persons, character, or motives. This is not to say that we don’t or shouldn’t care about persons, character, or motives; it’s to say that these things have nothing directly to do with truth.
This is a topic that's always in the back of my mind when I listen to politicians or read about current affairs; it was even more pertinent last year, as the tortuous election cycle ground on and on. Professor Burgess-Jackson's definition is rigorous and fully developed, as it should be coming from a professional philosopher. My conclusions on the subject are simpler, but echo his most important points: high standards of discovery, analysis, and presentation of facts; logical consistency; avoidance of explanations requiring unnatural complexity; and the avoidance of logical fallacies.
Here's an example: "Yes, Saddam was an evil despot and killed many of his fellow Iraqis, but the US has killed over 100,000 civilians. We're no better than Saddam."
1) The 100,000 civilian deaths has been discredited, and no support for the claim is made in any event.
2) Justifying immoral behavior by citing other immoral behavior is a fallacy, whether the cited behavior is true or not.
I'm not a expert in logical argument, but the anti-war left and candidate Kerry made for easy practice.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/287
