Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving characterised by a nonpartisan and honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways: One's personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
It's typically considered intellectually dishonest to pass off another person's work as your own. "Intellectually honest" in this case means "honest about representing what one's sources are." Wikipedia is an interesting case, however, in that we don't claim most of the articles as our own, nor do we claim that the articles are original work.
Sam Harris (a new atheist) has attacked possibilianism as "intellectually dishonest", and its description of strict atheism as a straw man. Harris writes that the position Eagleman espouses "is, simply, atheism."
"The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light." This claim is impossible to verify, it suggests a preconception about the term that may or may not hold any validity. As such this claim could also be a biased slant.
But after a long cross-disciplinary career, he feels it's intellectually dishonest to write anything other than what he sees as the unavoidable conclusion: Free will is a myth, and the sooner we ...
In particular, Aron considered that there was a form of intellectual dishonesty or hypocrisy at work in his time period, where some people were extremely critical of certain forms of government or society (such as capitalist democracy) but forgiving towards crimes and infractions committed in societies claiming to manifest the 'correct' ideology.
Fans on Twitter, where intellectually dishonest people go to distort the truth until the lemmings believe the lie, are saying Filipowski stuck out his leg. He made the contact with the Wake Forest ...
The claims made for the importance of the list have also been called intellectually dishonest because it represents only a small fraction of the scientific community, and includes an even smaller number of relevant experts. [44] The Discovery Institute has responded to some of these criticisms. [45] [46]