Intellectual Honesty

Suppse one sets out to defend a conviction using all the intellectual weaponry at his disposal. Even if he provides sound logic and steers clear of inconsistency, is he not still intellectually dishonest by virtue of his intention?

I'm not looking to start a war, I am genuinely interested in hearing responses.

I think we are all guilty. I think healthy debates are good, since even if at the time people aren't too willing to change their opinion, it's more likely that they will at a later time, after their "belief defense mechanisms" are not on guard.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppse one sets out to defend a conviction using all the intellectual weaponry at his disposal. Even if he provides sound logic and steers clear of inconsistency, is he not still intellectually dishonest by virtue of his intention?

I'm not looking to start a war, I am genuinely interested in hearing responses.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand your point. How can you possibly consider what he does be considered intellectually dishonest?

Good, I purposely made this vague. His intellectual dishonesty starts with the word conviction.

I think he is saying it is dishonest because the individual has an agenda - before he begins he knows the conclusion he is trying to prove. I agree it is hard or impossible to be unbaised when you begin an inquiry in this fashion.

Of course, this is why debate is good and forums like this one are so useful. The caveat is that the participants of the debate have to be mentally flexible, and this is not usually the case.

I like to say there is a difference between an idea and a belief. An idea is something which makes sense to you but you are willing to hear other arguments. A belief is something about which you are certain, therefore if someone disagrees with you they are necessarially against you (see NotReady's opinion of Atheists in the "A question for Atheists and Chrisitans" thread).

On the contraty, if someone disagrees with your idea they can become your ally in a search for the greater truth. In general, ideas are good and beliefs are bad. If you don't keep talking to people who disagree with you the line will begin to blur.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
A belief is something about which you are certain, therefore if someone disagrees with you they are necessarially against you (see NotReady's opinion of Atheists in the "A question for Atheists and Chrisitans" thread).

[/ QUOTE ]

And the logical error ( and one reason NR appears so illogical) in such a view is the 'excluded middle". Setting up every situation as black-white, and framing it in "you're either for me or against me" is false in the huge majority of anything but the simplist of situations and sometimes even in those.

If I were NR's campaign manager I'd tell him to stop representing himself as god's spokesman on earth and face up to what atheists have been telling him in various ways .. any hostility is toward some misguided human endeavor, often done in the name of god. It's a personal psyche defense mechanism to pretend the hostility someone like NR may feel in interaction with atheists is actually directed at god... nope, it's usually directed right at the person or certainly some specific social setting the person is selling in gods name.

Right. Convictions by necessity are a cessation in reason. Usually, there is some external (psychological, cultural, etc.) motivation behind a conviction, which the debator fails to sufficiently examine. The intellectual dishonesty, therefore, is not to others, but to himself. Dishonesty is a harsh word because it is not intentional, but the conviction is still a lie of sorts: it gives the false appearance of truth.

[Trantor]

I had assumed he had arrived at his conviction by using all the intellectual weaponry at his disposal and that he had used sound logic and had steered clear of inconsistency in doing so. It seems to me arguing for his conviction in this way seems entirely proper.

Are you arguing this is no proper reason to form a conviction and argue for them?

What other criteria need to be satisfied before this is proper? Maybe you think this is can never be proper?

I don't think it is ever proper to hold a conviction you are willing to put on a pedestal and defend to the death. All I'm saying is that we should be careful with our convictions, to not buy into them completely. There should always be some doubt in your mind to keep you honest. This is essentially the idea behind Luckyme's signature, "If I thought I was wrong I would change my mind." Convictions control us, whereas if we are without convictions, we are in control.

[Darryl_P]

If he ignores powerful arguments which oppose his views and either pretends they are not there, throws up smoke screens by getting tied down on some little detail, or simply gives a quick shrug-off by calling names, invoking God or using any other show-stopper, then yes, I'd say that's being intellectually dishonest.