Logic is good, but in my experience, it's virtually impotent in the face of intellectual dishonesty (and this is a great list). If the person you're arguing against is so invested in their opinion that they're unwilling to seriously consider the possibility that they might be wrong, then your appeal to logic, no matter how clear or rigorous, will fall on deaf ears.
But more important than even logic, in my opinion, is sense, which is the stuff on which logic is based. But it's also the basis for much else that makes up what we call "judgment", which relies on considerably more than the exercise of good logic.
After having my ideology overturned many a time, from conservatism to socialism to objectivism to liberalism, I've learned that the best intellectual policy is to simply assume that even your most strongly held beliefs are wrong, and attempt vigorously to prove it.
the thing is, if joe average thought less of people for being intellectually dishonest, joe average would be in a much better place. Instead of just appealing to his emotions, politicians (and salespeople) would need to appeal to his interests.
This is more like a list of ways to be a swell guy than ways to be intellectually honest. I know lots of brilliant assholes whom this wouldn't fit for.
Yeah, I don't know why being intellectually honest means one's ideas are accessible to everyone or implies the admission that there are other equally valid ideas.
Emphasizing this seems more a recipe for intellectual tepidity and vapidity than honesty.
If someone is really sold on an idea, I think it is more effective if they pursue it full heartedly. If someone else disagrees, it is up to them to develop an effective counter argument.
Yes, if a whole area is of interest to me, then it is useful to investigate all the relevant ideas. Otherwise, I don't see why this is important. It isn't very efficient for everyone to address everything. There are just way too many possible alternatives to consider all of them. As an analogy, we all know software that packs everything but the kitchen sink isn't usually very good. The Unix philosophy is special tools for special purposes.
For instance, I want very biased news sources, from multiple biases, instead of all sources trying to cover all angles all the time. Leave it up to me to sort out the overall picture, or just focus on one view if it seems to be the most relevant.
I don't really like the article's emphasis on the appearance of being intellectually honest, rather than intellectual honesty itself, but the latter is more or less an inward version of the outward former.
And there's certainly no reason why a brilliant asshole can't be intellectually dishonest. One can be right without being intellectually honest, just as one can be wrong while being intellectually honest. One can also be brilliant without being right, and one can be brilliant in a particular domain, but not in others. But as a general rule of thumb, intellectual honesty is the best policy.
no, it has nothing to do with being a 'nice guy' - it is about being direct and honest. I know several brilliant people who are completely confident even in areas where they know nothing. The problem with this is that for me to use that brilliant but intellectually dishonest guy, I need to have a good idea of what he knows and what he doesn't. This one guy I know is a brilliant computer scientist, or at least, he's much better than I am. He's not going to deliberately mislead me, but once he gets an idea in his head, to him, that idea is truth - this is fine when you ask him stuff he knows. You get the right answers, and aggressive rhetoric to back it up. He's a great counterweight to salesguys, 'cause he can talk the boss into doing the right thing. However, if you ask him about something he knows nothing about, he will back up his uninformed opinions and half-baked theories with rhetoric that is just as strong.
With someone who is intellectually honest, I can ask advice on a wide variety of subjects, and even if I know nothing of the subject in question, I can figure out how much my intellectually honest adviser knows about the subject in question, as well as what he thinks I should do.
I also know people who are assholes who are also intellectually honest. Really, any kind of honesty requires being at least a little bit of an asshole.
I'm not sure if this is a list about intellectual honesty, but it's a good way to see if someone is interested in finding the true answer to a question, vs. being "right".
11. Never say that a fact supports your position if you're not willing to change said position if said fact turns out to be something other than what you thought originally. ("I like ponies because the sky is green." "The sky isn't green." "I still like ponies.")
It is interesting how this reads like a "how to recognize a person who is bad at marketing" list.
Really, I think as a customer, you get a much better deal if you place more value on logic and honesty than on rhetoric, confidence, and the tall guy in the nice suit.
The battle cry of the Perl community is TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than One Way To Do It). I've always been sceptical about it - sure there is more than one way - but there must be one best way. Until I realized that this is not about the technology - it is about having the mind open: "Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist" - indeed.
Does intellectual honesty actually help in becoming popular? I am not sure that it is the best way to "win" public discussions. For example, admitting that I could be wrong (which I almost always do, due to my mathematical training) always seems to backfire, creating an easy win for the opposition.
<hides>