3 ms·
I think it's possible to argue carefully, thoughtfully, and with 100% good intentions, and still be guilty of intellectual dishonesty. Example: the honest, wel
by h34t 19y ago
I think it's possible to argue carefully, thoughtfully, and with 100% good intentions, and still be guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Example: the honest, well-intentioned pastor who delivers a sermon on creationism. I witnessed one of these last year -- I was stunned by the intellectual dishonesty as he made a false statements about what "science" and "scientists" say, but understand that he's a loving man who cares deeply and authentically for his congregation.
The fact that he believes what he's saying doesn't change the dishonesty of his arguments.
- deleted 19y ago[deleted]
- h34t 18y ago148-day-later-update: I may have been misguided here. There's a difference between being wrong, and being dishonest. Dishonesty implies deception -- intentionally misleading people. The pastor in my example misled people with wrong arguments, but it was unintentional. While this type of action can lead to horrible results, it's hard to call the pastor "dishonest" if he didn't intend to deceive. Perhaps a better descriptor would be "fool" or "ignoramus".