10 richtlijnen voor intellectuele eerlijkheid

[straddle]

Het kan zeker geen kwaad om eens een paar algemene regels mbt intellectuele eerlijkheid neer te zetten. Verhoogt het nivo en verbetert de sfeer ongetwijfeld.

Op een angelsakisch forum waar ik nogal eens actief ben vond ik dergelijke richtlijnen: (sorry, in het engels, wie tijd en goesting heeft kan het vertalen...).


Intellectuele eerlijkheid:



The 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty
October 20th, 2008 by Mike Gene


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.

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



Bron:

http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/conte...ctual-honesty/

[Fallen Angel]

Ik weet niet of het gepast is om het hier te plaatsen (als dat niet zo is laat het mij dan weten)

Maar het kan wel handig zijn om te weten wat deze hier zijn en (proberen) zich hier niet aan te bezondigen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Formal fallacies

Formal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious due to an error in their form or technical structure. All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs.

• Appeal to probability: because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is the premise on which Murphy's Law is based.

• Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion must necessarily be false.

• Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.

• Base rate fallacy: using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability.

• Conjunction fallacy: assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.

• Correlative based fallacies
  • Denying the correlative: where attempts are made at introducing alternatives where there are none
  • Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible

• Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises

• False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several

• If-by-whiskey: An answer that takes side of the questioner's suggestive question

• Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)

• Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process

• Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one

• Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is "good" or "right"

• Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect

• Negative Proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false

• Package-deal fallacy: when two or more things having been linked together by tradition or culture are said to stay that way forever

Propositional fallacies:

• Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true.

• Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A

• Denying the antecedent: the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore not B

Quantificational fallacies:

• Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion

• Proof by example: where things are proven by giving an example

Formal syllogistic fallacies

Syllogistic fallacies are logical fallacies that occur in syllogisms.

• Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise

• Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative

• Fallacy of four terms: a categorical syllogism has four terms

• Illicit major: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but distributed in the conclusion

• Illicit minor: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because its minor term is undistributed in the minor premise but distributed in the conclusion.

• Fallacy of the undistributed middle: the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed

Informal fallacies

Informal fallacies are arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural ("formal") flaws.

• Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam)

• Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous

• Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."

• Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises

• Burden of proof

• Circular cause and consequence

• Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard)

• Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)

• Equivocation

• Fallacies of distribution
  • Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
  • Ecological fallacy

• Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum)

• Fallacy of the single cause

• Historian's fallacy

• False attribution
  • Fallacy of quoting out of context

• False compromise/middle ground

• Gambler's fallacy: the incorrect belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or predicted from other, independent events

• Incomplete comparison

• Inconsistent comparison

• Intentional fallacy

• Loki's Wager

• Moving the goalpost

• No true Scotsman

• Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented

• Post hoc ergo propter hoc: also known as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.

• Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)

• Psychologist's fallacy

• Regression fallacy

• Reification (hypostatization)

• Retrospective determinism (it happened so it was bound to)

• Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption

• Suppressed correlative: an argument which tries to redefine a correlative (two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, thus making one alternative impossible

• Wrong direction

Faulty generalizations:

• Accident (fallacy): when an exception to the generalization is ignored

• Cherry picking

• Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole

• Dicto simpliciter
  • Converse accident (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter): when an exception to a generalization is wrongly called for

• False analogy

• Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)

• Loki's Wager: insistence that because a concept cannot be clearly defined, it cannot be discussed

• Misleading vividness

• Overwhelming exception

• Spotlight fallacy

• Thought-terminating cliché: a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance.

Red herring fallacies

A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion

• Ad hominem: attacking the personal instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.

• Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party

• Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true

• Association fallacy & Guilt by association

• Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it

• Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party

• Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
  • Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
  • Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
  • Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
  • Appeal to flattery: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support

• Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer

• Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern

• Appeal to poverty (argumentum ad lazarum)

• Appeal to wealth (argumentum ad crumenam)

• Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)

• Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long-standing tradition behind it

• Chronological snobbery: where a thesis is deemed incorrect because it was commonly held when something else, clearly false, was also commonly held

• Genetic fallacy

• Judgmental language

• Poisoning the well

• Sentimental fallacy: it would be more pleasant if; therefore it ought to be; therefore it is

• Straw man argument

• Style over substance fallacy

• Texas sharpshooter fallacy

• Two wrongs make a right

• Tu quoque

Conditional or questionable fallacies

• Definist fallacy
• Luddite fallacy
• Slippery slope