These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Can IGS Posts Meet A Minimum Standard of Intellectual Honesty?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Matar Ronin
#121 - 2014-08-26 10:56:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Matar Ronin
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre wrote:
I was planning to let this topic rest. But I am afraid I have to mention a small quibble, grouse, gripe with the original post.

The structure of your message revolves around this notion of 'intellectual honesty,' but there is a significant difficulty with your use of the phrase. The people you are criticizing are often not being intellectually dishonest. They quite sincerely believe the facts are as they see them and lead to the conclusions they have come to. Are there charlatans that do not genuinely think what they claim to? Indeed, but it seems likely that is not the majority of participants in the Intergalactic Summit. The people you are criticizing think the facts are actually as they see them and quite rationally come to their worldview through that perception of the facts.

It is disingenuous to claim that those you disagree with are simply being intellectually dishonest and therefore allowing yourself to dismiss them out of hand.

A good example of intellectual dishonesty would be when someone puts forth their own position as if it were proven fact, as in saying what other posters actually believe to be true when they in fact have no scientific way to support their conclusion. Strongly thinking you can live in the vacuum of space without the need for artificial support does not keep you alive no matter how deeply rooted your false belief might be.

To continue to converse with people who sadly " think the facts are actually as they see them and quite rationally come to their worldview through that perception of the facts." without informing them of the easily provable falsehoods that drive them, now that would indeed be disingenuous. You might as well open the airlock and escort them into the vacuum without spacesuit or ship.

A statement that is clearly not based in provable facts often comes up short in impartial analysis. We can if we so choose, strive to not fall prey to the seemingly sometimes petty biases that masquerade as cultural foibles, truly I hope people can raise themselves above that and converse on a plane that is inhabited by those who make a constant conscious effort to maintain intellectual honesty.

That is simply my hope, and by no means a demand that you need feel compelled to try and achieve.

‘Vain flame burns fast/and its lick is light/Modest flame lasts long/and burns to the bone.’

" We lost a war we chose not to fight." Without a doubt this is the best way to lose any war and the worst excuse to explain the beating afterwards.
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
#122 - 2014-08-26 13:23:10 UTC
Matar Ronin wrote:

A good example of intellectual dishonesty would be when someone puts forth their own position as if it were proven fact, as in saying what other posters actually believe to be true when they in fact have no scientific way to support their conclusion.


What you describe is ignorance and clouded judgment, not intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty requires that someone be aware that the facts do not support their decision and are intentionally misrepresenting them or avoiding them in order to put their position in a better light. This is why the phrase has the word 'dishonest' in it. It requires knowledge of falsehood and the intentional avoidance of that falsehood.

The people you describe are not being dishonest. They simply interpret the facts differently than yourself or they are unaware of facts. To accuse them of intellectual dishonesty is nothing more than a convenient way to be able to avoid them and their beliefs.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#123 - 2014-08-26 15:03:50 UTC
Quite so. There's an important distinction between actual dishonesty and merely being misinformed.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#124 - 2014-08-26 15:07:06 UTC
Stitcher wrote:
Quite so. There's an important distinction between actual dishonesty and merely being misinformed.


I think I can count the number of people I know well enough to take a guess at their motivations on the fingers of one hand.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
#125 - 2014-08-26 15:27:13 UTC
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:
Stitcher wrote:
Quite so. There's an important distinction between actual dishonesty and merely being misinformed.


I think I can count the number of people I know well enough to take a guess at their motivations on the fingers of one hand.


That is precisely part of the point. The original speaker was in fact going quite beyond guessing at the motivations of others, but actually accusing them of dishonesty without providing any basis for his broad and sweeping accusation of Intergalactic Summit participants beyond him finding them and their views to be incorrect.
Matar Ronin
#126 - 2014-08-26 19:03:27 UTC
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre wrote:
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:
Stitcher wrote:
Quite so. There's an important distinction between actual dishonesty and merely being misinformed.


I think I can count the number of people I know well enough to take a guess at their motivations on the fingers of one hand.


That is precisely part of the point. The original speaker was in fact going quite beyond guessing at the motivations of others, but actually accusing them of dishonesty without providing any basis for his broad and sweeping accusation of Intergalactic Summit participants beyond him finding them and their views to be incorrect.

I am not sure what you are basing your opinion on, but it does not appear to factually be my statement.

Please re-read my original post and then demonstrate how you came to this conclusion.

Perhaps you are reading something into my statement I am unaware of.

Please be specific.

Could you go thru it point by point and show where you find it incorrect?

‘Vain flame burns fast/and its lick is light/Modest flame lasts long/and burns to the bone.’

" We lost a war we chose not to fight." Without a doubt this is the best way to lose any war and the worst excuse to explain the beating afterwards.
Katrina Oniseki
Oniseki-Raata Internal Watch
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#127 - 2014-08-26 19:13:45 UTC
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:
Stitcher wrote:
Quite so. There's an important distinction between actual dishonesty and merely being misinformed.


I think I can count the number of people I know well enough to take a guess at their motivations on the fingers of one hand.


You'll never guess mine! I am mysterious like the penguin.

Disregard secretaries, acquire currency.

Katrina Oniseki
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#128 - 2014-08-26 20:22:18 UTC
Katrina Oniseki wrote:
Pieter Tuulinen wrote:
Stitcher wrote:
Quite so. There's an important distinction between actual dishonesty and merely being misinformed.


I think I can count the number of people I know well enough to take a guess at their motivations on the fingers of one hand.


You'll never guess mine! I am mysterious like the penguin.

Disregard secretaries, acquire currency.


This is true. She is the enigmatic.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
#129 - 2014-08-27 16:27:32 UTC
Matar Ronin wrote:

I am not sure what you are basing your opinion on, but it does not appear to factually be my statement.

Please re-read my original post and then demonstrate how you came to this conclusion.

Perhaps you are reading something into my statement I am unaware of.

Please be specific.

Could you go thru it point by point and show where you find it incorrect?


I am afraid in this particular case I do not see that sort of time investment to be worthwhile. My point was a fairly obvious one and not worth much elaboration.
Matar Ronin
#130 - 2014-08-28 06:02:49 UTC
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre wrote:
Matar Ronin wrote:

I am not sure what you are basing your opinion on, but it does not appear to factually be my statement.

Please re-read my original post and then demonstrate how you came to this conclusion.

Perhaps you are reading something into my statement I am unaware of.

Please be specific.

Could you go thru it point by point and show where you find it incorrect?


I am afraid in this particular case I do not see that sort of time investment to be worthwhile. My point was a fairly obvious one and not worth much elaboration.

In other words you lack the integrity to admit your comments indeed have no basis in facts.

Your point was not based on what I wrote, but instead perhaps upon some abstract idea you dreamt up.

Since my initial comments were very brief with your near immortal capsuleer lifespan you clearly have the time to respond if you could, but since the truth will destroy your imaginary straw man you choose instead the less then honorable exit.

Be happy with yourself if you have no time for the truth enjoy your false conclusions founded upon your own twisted conjuring.

‘Vain flame burns fast/and its lick is light/Modest flame lasts long/and burns to the bone.’

" We lost a war we chose not to fight." Without a doubt this is the best way to lose any war and the worst excuse to explain the beating afterwards.
N'maro Makari
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#131 - 2014-08-28 09:07:17 UTC
Matar Ronin wrote:
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre wrote:
Matar Ronin wrote:

I am not sure what you are basing your opinion on, but it does not appear to factually be my statement.

Please re-read my original post and then demonstrate how you came to this conclusion.

Perhaps you are reading something into my statement I am unaware of.

Please be specific.

Could you go thru it point by point and show where you find it incorrect?


I am afraid in this particular case I do not see that sort of time investment to be worthwhile. My point was a fairly obvious one and not worth much elaboration.

In other words you lack the integrity to admit your comments indeed have no basis in facts.

Your point was not based on what I wrote, but instead perhaps upon some abstract idea you dreamt up.

Since my initial comments were very brief with your near immortal capsuleer lifespan you clearly have the time to respond if you could, but since the truth will destroy your imaginary straw man you choose instead the less then honorable exit.

Be happy with yourself if you have no time for the truth enjoy your false conclusions founded upon your own twisted conjuring.


You don't take kindly to being upstaged do you?

Ease off on the "bold" button.

**Vherokior **