--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > I came across "pathological skepticism'
Another term for it is "skeptopathy." when investigating the term -- if the qualifer provided much of a > distinction with a difference. > > "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. It is an obfuscatory way to > say "you're lying". " My goodness, that's an odd set of assertions. Where did you find them? To start with, it's hardly necessary to say that "the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light." What other kind of light could it possibly frame a person in? In the second place, there's a clear distinction between lying and intellectual dishonesty, at least as I've always understood and used the terms. Lying has to do with facts, whereas intellectual dishonesty has to do with reasoning and argumentation (e.g., logical fallacies). A person can be intellectually dishonest without ever actually telling a lie. Sounds to me as though the definition you cite was crafted by someone who had more than once been accused of intellectual dishonesty...
