[MD] Nest of Diapers

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Mark] 
> A general argument may go like this: 
> 1) If M believes X is intellectually dishonest, the conclusion is based upon a 
> definition of what intellectual dishonesty is. 
> 2) Intellectual dishonesty requires a definition of what intellectual honesty 
> is. 
> 3) Intellectual honesty is an adherence to truth as a species of quality: 
> 
> 4) 'Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and trial by 
> jury.' 
> (McWatt. 2004. p. 95)

Re: This argument.
4) is neither a premise nor conclusion to the purported argument, so (though it is true enough) doesn't seem relevant.
3) is a definition, so I assume is supposed to be a premise.
2) seems false.  One can be intellectually dishonest without having a definition of intellectual honesty.
1) is questionable.  First, is X a person, a practice or what?  Secondly, conclusions can be based on definitions as you say, but I don't find either a conclusion or a definition of 'intellectual dishonesty' on which it is based, in the argument.
Craig