[MD] Nest of Diapers

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

[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.
 
 
Mark 18-11-06: Hello Craig,
If 4 is true, then it can be employed to support 3.
If 3 is supported by 4 then we can infer 2.
If 2, 3 and 4 are supported then 1 is sound.
I've reversed what i said.
Love,
Mark


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