Intellectual Dishonesty

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by Red »

Hey guys, I'm pretty sure we all know what intellectual dishonesty is; not really interested in the truth, and just going along with your own agenda.

A pretty big issue when it comes to intellectual dishonesty is screwing up the definitions of words arbitrarily in a debate to suit your narrative. You know, kinda like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8

Anyways, I was observing a debate the other day where one guy said that you can't create arbitrary definitions in a debate to suit your narrative (okay), to which the opponent responded that yes you can, since the definitions for words can be made up, and that's how we have definitions for words (wut).
I knew this point was bogus, since I thought that in debates, you're gonna be using the colloquial definitions for words, and you'll just end up confusing the opponent, and makes debating pretty pointless, in a way. It's fine to discuss what certain things can possibly mean, especially when that's the main topic at play, but it's disingenuous to assume your own definition without telling the other party.

The main question I have though is how can this really be all that big of a deal? Granted, I haven't been in a debate where the opponent changes the definition, but I'm not quite sure how it can be so bad if it's just a little confusion. I might think of a few reasons, but I'm not 100% on them.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Check my latest response here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3483#p33822

There are *some* words it doesn't matter much for, as long as you define them on the spot and the other person in the debate agrees (although it's really best to coin a new term if you're going to do that).
There are others where it matters a lot, because they link to complicated concepts that are interrelated, so you can easily produce contradictions by screwing with the definitions.

Imagine if you redefine 5 as the sum of 2 and 2. Well, maybe in that isolated case it'll work, but then you just broke math and you have to redefine everything else too. Is ten the product of 2 and 5? Apparently not anymore, or are you redefining what 10 amounts to as well? The ripple effects are hard to predict or account for.

The definitions in rigorous fields like physics, mathematics, and philosophy have been established for reasons, because they account clearly and unambiguously for certain concepts and their logical relations with each other (subjectivism and objectivism is a good recent example). If you redefine one, you have to redefine all of them, and if you don't and you mix definitions you'll end up with contradictions which can be exploited as fallacies in arguments deriving from ambiguity, conflict, or gaps (which can result in false dichotomies) between definitions.

If somebody thinks he or she can consistently redefine everything in such a field as physics or philosophy without causing those issues (beyond trivially making some kind of cipher), that person is probably a raging narcissist and victim of the dunning-kruger effect.
It's literally thinking that you can single-handedly reinvent a field on the fly that took thousands of people centuries to develop.
I maybe could do that in a few years of work with a meticulous reference table of some kind and with the benefit of modern computer technology (which I'm pretty sure these people don't think they need the help of), but WHY?

Also, if the conversation was about physics or philosophy, the implication is that you're using those terms... so if you don't make it abundantly clear upfront and repeatedly that you're ignoring all of the formal terminology and arbitrarily substituting in your own definitions for everything, you're just being an asshole and wasting other people's time. That's like sitting down to chess and then playing by the rules of go instead. Even if the new game you invented has consistent rules, it's not what anybody else is playing and why can't you just use the words other professionals already basically understand the definitions of or can use an encyclopedia of philosophy to look up rather than having to define everything in real time and hope they'll remember your random definitions from one sentence to the next?
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by NonZeroSum »

Red wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm A pretty big issue when it comes to intellectual dishonesty is screwing up the definitions of words arbitrarily in a debate to suit your narrative. You know, kinda like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8
. . .
It's fine to discuss what certain things can possibly mean, especially when that's the main topic at play, but it's disingenuous to assume your own definition without telling the other party.
I know I'm biased, but I don't feel like this fits into the criteria of smuggling a definition under the rug that you weren't aware of, it just appears as a confusing oxymoron to the person with only a basic knowledge of political climate until explained more. As well as it being a fierce fight over what the necessary conclusions of ethical principles and organizational theory are. I could use left-libertarian with Americans who aren't aware of the history to denote moving power to decentralized councils, but I just assume socialism does the "left" part, whilst denoting a labor theory of value, they both work together, socially and economically libertarian-socialist/ social-anarchist/ market-socialist/ left-market-anarchist.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:28 pm I know I'm biased, but I don't feel like this fits into the criteria of smuggling a definition under the rug that you weren't aware of, it just appears as a confusing oxymoron to the person with only a basic knowledge of political climate until explained more.
I don't think it's just naively oxymoronic.

You still need a state and power structure to force worker ownership and to resolve conflicts between competing businesses and within worker owned businesses.
China has a lot of collective ownership, and it's a problem (it wasn't just the state running things).

The only way you wouldn't need it to force worker ownership is if worker owned and operated businesses were more competitive, in which case the system could thrive on its own within an otherwise free market, but also in which case I think we'd already be seeing that.
That doesn't eliminate the need for a strong government for other programs.

I think there are some compelling human reasons, particularly with automation, to drive the economy in the direction of worker owned businesses. It's certainly more psychologically beneficial because your gains came by your own work and it gives life and business more meaning vs. just putting in hours and getting a paycheck. But it's not necessarily economically more beneficial so it's not like we're suddenly going to have all of these resources (likely less). You also need a strong state safety net for when those businesses fail (which is the problem with self employment) and administering that again takes a large central authority, AND a unified educational system so people get the education they need to operate these businesses they're working in to make it so they can function without hierarchies (so we don't end up with Mondragon situations where it's all nice in theory but in practice a few people at the bank, the brains of the operation, are actually running it and it's really just worker teams that are self owned like organs in a body).

The problem comes in with the ambiguity, and how that conceptual balance is struck (and if there really is such a thing in practice).

In the very least, new terms are needed because when these terms were originated the economic knowledge just wasn't there to make them consistent.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:28 pmAs well as it being a fierce fight over what the necessary conclusions of ethical principles and organizational theory are.
I think that's ONE thing that gives it credibility: that these political terms, like religious terms "Christian" "Muslism" etc. aren't very well settled and there's probably more internal dispute than agreement.
There is some leeway in interpreting some of these issues. As socially libertarian as possible while still having a solid social safety net? Sure, but that's just being a very principled Democrat really. Democrats don't want to control the economy, they just want to extract enough from it to create the necessary safety nets so people don't fall through the cracks.

At best it seems like libertarian and socialist are just counteracting each other and resulting in a pretty typical progressive position.

If we try to use a decentralized power structure of direct democracy to power the education and systems needed to make direct democracy work the whole thing is just going to crash down.

I understand that your thoughts (correct me if I'm wrong) are to, contrary to "tear it all down and worry about it later" style anarchists, get things to where they need to be before taking off the training wheels of government. Basically so we have a running start and momentum to work off of, or that our social pump is primed.
I would refer to an analogy of Earnshaw's Theorem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem
The socially destabilizing forces are not unlike those operating in electromagnetic configurations.

That all said, I think we can and will get there with computer assistance (just as we can use computer assistance to stabilize magnetic levitation).
But then that's just a benevolent authoritarian AI preventing the collapse of voluntary human systems through power creep and other factors.


Anyway, I agree that things to do with politics are religion are much less of the smoking gun of intellectual dishonesty than something like what Ask Yourself is doing by arbitrary picking and choosing from colloquial and formal definitions in philosophy within a larger and more rigorous system of terminology.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:43 pm
That's a lot of interesting ideas expressed just riffing off of terms, I'd need a few more pointed questions to give you satisfactory answers, but I'll say I wouldn't mind being called a principled democrat/progressive in the US, though in this country it's much simpler labour-union movment (of which you get libertarian socialist/democratic soc/authoritarian soc) vs. liberal vs. conservative.

And I am looking for the prefigurative systems which show signs of stability so they aren't collapsed by reactionary forces as soon as you take the training wheels off of the part gov representatives play wheeling and dealing.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:50 pm I'll say I wouldn't mind being called a principled democrat/progressive in the US, though in this country it's much simpler labour-union movment (of which you get libertarian socialist/democratic soc/authoritarian soc) vs. liberal vs. conservative.
Of course, terminology varies considerably by country.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:50 pm And I am looking for the prefigurative systems which show signs of stability so they aren't collapsed by reactionary forces as soon as you take the training wheels off of the part gov representatives play wheeling and dealing.
Oh, I see.
Ever considered Earnshaw's Theorem?
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:20 am Ever considered Earnshaw's Theorem?
It's a nice concept how you related it to automation.

BernieBro also reminded me of the Overton Window which is a really simple policy foundation, but one a lot of people miss I think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
Commissaris
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:50 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by Commissaris »

Red wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm A pretty big issue when it comes to intellectual dishonesty is screwing up the definitions of words arbitrarily in a debate to suit your narrative. You know, kinda like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8
What definitions is this YouTuber arbitrarily screwing up to suit their narrative?
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3897
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: To the Depths, in Degradation

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by Red »

Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:03 am
Red wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm A pretty big issue when it comes to intellectual dishonesty is screwing up the definitions of words arbitrarily in a debate to suit your narrative. You know, kinda like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8
What definitions is this YouTuber arbitrarily screwing up to suit their narrative?
The terms 'Libertarian' and 'Socialist' I think.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci
User avatar
Commissaris
Newbie
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:50 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

Post by Commissaris »

Red wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:06 am
Commissaris wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:03 am
Red wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm A pretty big issue when it comes to intellectual dishonesty is screwing up the definitions of words arbitrarily in a debate to suit your narrative. You know, kinda like this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfKrI6Q_W8
What definitions is this YouTuber arbitrarily screwing up to suit their narrative?
The terms 'Libertarian' and 'Socialist' I think.
Could you elaborate on that? What evidence is there that he's A) messing them up, B) doing so arbitrarily and C) doing so to suit his narrative?

The struggle over the definitions of words is fought sincerely all the time and co-opting or distorting the meaning of words is a real-world phenomenon that people fight back against. "Socialism" has a véry long tradition of referring to worker-controlled societies (typically as opposed to privately- or state-controlled) and "Libertarianism" only refers to a strand of free-marketers in the US and to people who especially value freedom of choice and voluntary association (contrasted with authoritarianism) everywhere else around the world. Even politicalcompass.org uses "libertarian" in that sense.

"Socialism" specifically is a scientific phrase that historically belongs with the radical political left and has been twisted to refer to a state-controlled society rather than a worker-controlled one (speaking véry broadly here). Unless you believe people should just be able to claim and distort your terminology if they have the means to do so I find it completely understandable that this YouTuber tries to hold on to or reclaim it. You might argue that that approach isn't effective, but I don't see any reason to cast aspersions on his motivations. What reasons do you have?
Last edited by Commissaris on Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply