Intellectual Honesty

In high school English class, while we were learning to write good papers - coherent, convincing, well-structured works - I remember one piece of advice that seemed backwards and silly when first presented: acknowledge the strengths of the opposing opinion/the weaknesses of your opinion, and then go on to further your claim, even in light of its holes. I didn't appreciate this wisdom fully until seminary, when I was trying to write papers on topics that church fathers and academics and professional theologians had been writing on for years and years and years. It is difficult to write papers that critique or oppose ideas presented by major players in the academic/theological world, even if you happen to have a major theologian on your side while doing so! And so it became important to me not only to understand my side of a given issue, but also appreciate the worth of the person or thought or ideology against which I was arguing. It not only helped me craft my argument and craft my paper, but it also gave me credibility.

I was pleased to come across the following post a few weeks ago, which confirmed everything that my high school English teachers had taught me, and which has particular resonance with me when thinking about either politics or blog posts:
The 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty
When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.
1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.
2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.
3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.
4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.
5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.
6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.
7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.
8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.
9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. ‘Nuff said.
10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.
While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.
- Mike Gene
It's no secret that I am particularly sensitive about dialogue and about "playing fair" in conversation. Along with that, I get frustrated by politicians and bloggers who present themselves with an air of authority but who refuse to present their thoughts and opinions in an evenhanded way. I understand that blogs and academic papers are very different exercises, and I know that blogs are often spaces simply to voice opinions. But of the blogs I read, most of them are "trying to say something." That is, they want to stimulate intellectual and open dialogue on a variety of topics, ranging from economic policy to theology, from politics to literature. I am sorely disappointed when these blogs exhibit the sorts of intellectual dishonesty against which Mike Gene is speaking. No argument is one-sided, and no one side of an argument has the corner on truth, worth, or "right-ness." We would all do better in our writing - and not just our writing, but our speaking, our debating, and even our conversational dispositions - if we were to strive for a higher standard of intellectual honesty. Because, at its foundations, intellectual honesty is nothing more than respecting the worth of your fellow humans and respecting everyone's right to be thinking beings.

No comments:

Post a Comment