--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > <snip> > > I came across "pathological skepticism' > > Another term for it is "skeptopathy."
OK, thanks. But to me that sounds kind of medically scatological. :) I like "pathological skepticism" better. The article made some good distinctions, IMO. > 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? It was from wiki. ... > > 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. > Ok, thanks. Logical fallacy is how I assumed you were using the term recently. The term, "intellectual dishonesty" just struck me the other day as one of those common terms that i have used, but without thinking it through as to what the precise meaning, per other's usage, may be. As an aside, to me, saying that another's post "has a logical fallacy", while meaning the same, per your usage, as "the poster is intellectually dishonest", it is far less inflamatory. And less likely to raise hackles, set off flame wars, IMO. To the extent that all of us can use the least inflamatory words possible, and still get our points across, could help greatly in the effort to enable FFL to turn the cornor towards its more spakling past.
