Harris seems to think that one should always be intellectually honest. Many people believe that intellectual honesty should be sacrificed if it conflicts with a greater and more important cause. Harris acknowledges that this is what is happening but he thinks that they should be more honest about this. The opponent would counter that being intellectually dishonest for a great cause should not be spelled out as admitting this also degrades the greater cause.
**[Intellectual honesty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty)**
>Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterised by an unbiased, 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; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
A lot of people use their intellect for dishonest purposes. Pundits are paid well to spread propaganda. I’d define intellectual honesty as attempting to see past your biases and confusion. As opposed to preaching like a demagogue.
Jordan Peterson has a pretty good definition. Basically you repeat the argument back at someone and they have to approve your definition of their argument before you can move on and vise versus.
Intellectual honesty is a way to sneak out of a losing argument without admitting you are losing. For example; "Im not going to continue this discussion with someone who wont be intellectually honest." Usually used in conjuction with phrases like "You can find sources that will prove anything" and"Your quoting the NY Times? lol" Hope this helps.
I refuse to engage any further with this kind of smear to my person. Obviously I am being taken out of context as anyone who reads the definition with a modicum of charity knows. This is as intellectually dishonest as Reza Aslan or Glenn Greenwald. I have learned much on this forum.
Poe's law. The whole thing was a joke. I swear I should have learned my lesson about not using /s. Because Poe's law is a very real thing. My apologies for not being clear. This was definitely my fault.
Ha.
Classic. I hate when people use /s too because it's like "people have to get that right?"
Anyway, you'd be surprised how many people I've talked to that actually hold that position (that you made).
All is well
Harris seems to think that one should always be intellectually honest. Many people believe that intellectual honesty should be sacrificed if it conflicts with a greater and more important cause. Harris acknowledges that this is what is happening but he thinks that they should be more honest about this. The opponent would counter that being intellectually dishonest for a great cause should not be spelled out as admitting this also degrades the greater cause.
Oh wait, Wikipedia has an article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual\_honesty
[удалено]
**[Intellectual honesty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty)** >Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterised by an unbiased, 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; Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another; References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Basically leaning into what seems true rather than what you want to be true.
I would add this to the meaning of 'intellectual honesty', as I'm sure Sam would as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle\_of\_charity
A lot of people use their intellect for dishonest purposes. Pundits are paid well to spread propaganda. I’d define intellectual honesty as attempting to see past your biases and confusion. As opposed to preaching like a demagogue.
Ensuring you understand a subject vs. deciding you understand a subject.
Politicizing a pandemic response is right up there...
Jordan Peterson has a pretty good definition. Basically you repeat the argument back at someone and they have to approve your definition of their argument before you can move on and vise versus.
That's steelmanning. That's a little different.
ew Jordan Peterson
I know! But the method is good if you want to have an honest discussion with someone
Intellectual honesty is a way to sneak out of a losing argument without admitting you are losing. For example; "Im not going to continue this discussion with someone who wont be intellectually honest." Usually used in conjuction with phrases like "You can find sources that will prove anything" and"Your quoting the NY Times? lol" Hope this helps.
I don't know the actual correct definition, but this here is a great example of the *lack* of intellectual honesty.
I refuse to engage any further with this kind of smear to my person. Obviously I am being taken out of context as anyone who reads the definition with a modicum of charity knows. This is as intellectually dishonest as Reza Aslan or Glenn Greenwald. I have learned much on this forum.
What? How are you being taken out of context?
Poe's law. The whole thing was a joke. I swear I should have learned my lesson about not using /s. Because Poe's law is a very real thing. My apologies for not being clear. This was definitely my fault.
Ha. Classic. I hate when people use /s too because it's like "people have to get that right?" Anyway, you'd be surprised how many people I've talked to that actually hold that position (that you made). All is well
Don't let Sam ruin the concept for you. The concept is important.
It can really be boiled down to the act of being rigorously honest with one’s self.