When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse is dominated by rhetoric, statistical noise or just flat out propaganda: people pushing and shoving for prominence in the public square or on the printed page.
How quickly objectivity is obscured when it threatens to undercut this “messaging” and the “image” that is being pawned.
This is especially apparent during an election year.
Author Mike Gene, addresses the topic of intellectual honesty in his book, The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues (Arbor Vitae Press, 2007). Mike points out, “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.
“We should be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases … show a commitment to critical thinking.”
Journalist Sasha Issenberg conjectures, “Elections hinge on the motivations of millions of individual human beings and their messy, illogical, and often unknowable psychologies.”
Gene further challenges, “Ignoring the principles of critical thinking and relying on one source of information–usually without question–from sources that are known to support that person’s views or opinions, is being intellectually dishonest.”
Not only have we witnessed a significant reluctance to commit to critical thinking; we’ve, instead, seen energies diverted to criticizing those who challenge their personal, emotionally supported, assumptions.
Gene advises, “One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable [capable of being considered carefully] by most. If someone portrays his or her 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.
“People who will never admit that they are wrong– ever–regardless of clear evidence that demonstrates otherwise, employ a double standard: ‘Your evidence is unacceptable (because it’s your evidence).’
“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,” suggests Gene.
Katherine Viner, writing in a July 2016 article in The Guardian, “How Technology Disrupted Truth,” “Instead of strengthening social bonds, or creating an informed public, or the idea of news as a civic good, a democratic necessity, [news] creates gangs, which spread instant falsehoods that fit their views, reinforcing each other’s beliefs, driving each other deeper into shared opinions, rather than established facts.”
Gene encourages, “Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty [typically referring to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself].”
“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.
“When addressing an argument, one should show signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.”
Gene concludes, “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.”
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!” –Walter Scott
Former Cook County Commissioner Garry Gamble is writing this ongoing column about the various ways government works, as well as other topics. At times the column is editorial in nature.
Leave a Reply