[MD] Intellectual honesty

[John Carl]

Yeah, I can't see it being any fun for you this time either.


> John said to dmb:
>  I'm callin' you out, you metaphysical sissy.
>
> dmb says:
>
> Yea, I know. No thanks. Not interested.
>
>

Just get off your high-horse then, thinking you've got some kind of moral
high ground built-in that you don't even have to intellectually defend.

Consider carefully the following:


"Intellectual dishonesty is usually not the same as lying. In this case it's
a matter of ignoring or dismissing the relevant evidence, which has been
presented many, many times."


" Isn't it a perfectly reasonable expectation that people in a philosophical
debate should be persuaded by evidence?"


 "And isn't it just bizarre to watch as this basic rule of the game is
treated as a form of tyranny?"


"The idea I'm trying to get across here is that the intellectual level has
certain standards of excellence, has its own aesthetic, if you will. Unlike
SOM, the MOQ says that more than one truth can exist."


"All of this adds up to the idea that we can have multiple truths, different
maps for different purposes. But this does not mean that any truth is as
good as the next. Our intellectual descriptions still have to be logically
coherent, in agreement with experience, comparatively simple, elegant,
efficient and the like. Truth has to be good AS truth, as an idea that
functions, that works, that makes sense."


"In that sense, don't you think that being reasonable and persuadable is
part of being moral? Isn't morally wrong to ignore evidence? Granted, there
is always the possibility of sincere differences and honest
misunderstandings but when something so obvious has been presented so many
times, that kind of excuse just can't be sustained."


Yes dmb, I agree completely.

 I do think being reasonable and persuadable is part of being moral.  In
fact, in intellectual pattern and conflict, the most important part.

Why don't you try it sometime instead of merely spouting off about it?

Your loyal enemy,

John