Should intellectual Dishonest be more strictly moderated?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Kittamaru, Aug 17, 2015.

?

Should Intellectual Dishonesty be more strictly moderated/punished?

  1. Yes

    69.6%
  2. No

    17.4%
  3. Other

    13.0%
  4. I dont' care

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,915
    So... I want to know peoples personal opinions on this:

    When someone is being intentionally dishonest, either through fabricating "facts", quote mining, misrepresentation of someone else's statements, or otherwise, should this be worthy of moderation? Is honesty an important and necessary part of rational and logical discussion, or can/should it be cast by the wayside in favor of posting whatever someone pleases?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,030
    Of course it ****** should.

    This is supposed to be a science forum, not a soapbox.

    I'd like to see pseudoscience, blatant circular reasoning and deliberate wilful ignorance to be more strongly moderated too.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,474
    Certainly.
    There is, or at least used to be, a rule against deliberately misquoting someone to twist the expressed viewpoint.
    Covering the rest is just extending that rule.
    If posters are allowed to make up their own "facts", introduce known-to-be-specious sources etc what's the point of discussing anything?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Yes, with a guarded exception. Intellectual dishonesty must be judged by an actual intellectual. I have seen many, many specious claims on this forum and so while in concept it remains good, in practice it is likely to be mixed in application.
     
    Magical Realist and joepistole like this.
  8. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,915
    Certainly - however, some cases are pretty clear-cut (such as misquoting someone to try and change their claim)
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Two posters currently, on two threads, one in with the ghosts and goblins section, the other a religious fanatic in pseudoscience. As clear cut as any intellectual dishonesty can be.

    Oh, yes, I vote yes!
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Yes, I've seen this happen. Then again, there are a lot of specious claims, as you stipulate to above. How to judge?
     
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Oh, come on, the pseudosci isn't so bad. Sure, it's hugely unlikely. But doesn't it make our world just possibly more exciting to consider?
     
    Magical Realist likes this.
  12. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,915
    Typically anything that is in question is posed to the moderation staff as a whole; perhaps this particular rule should be limited in scope to more egregious offenses though?
     
  13. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,087
    Absolutely. The standards should vary based on subject - "mathematics" vs "ghosts, goblins, whatever" but dishonesty and deliberate disingenuity deserve moderation everywhere.
     
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I could agree to the above. Who corresponds to "the moderation staff as a whole"? How many staff respond, and who?
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Well since it was first up posted in science before the mods woke up, and then the intellectual dishonesty flowed on non stop from that point.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,474
    I have no complaints about "unlikely"[1] or even supporting/ positing the same.
    What I object to is deliberate misrepresentation of posts, of statements made by sources, of avoiding the actual subject with accusations of "picking on the poster" and the like.

    1 With the exception of you winning Sci's Bestest Member award, of course. But we all know that was fixed from the start.
     
  17. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,915
    Typically, those listed on our Staff list

    http://www.sciforums.com/members/?type=staff
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    See, while I could agree to the punishment of outrageous misrepresentation - and there's a lot of it - that second point is surely its clearest example. How outrageous; 'fixed from the start', indeed.

    Strike him, strike him! I demand you strike him!

    ...

    ...And not a fucking flying monkey in the barrel, either. There's preparedness for you. It just saps the joy out of the fun elements of being the dictator of a country that absolutely exists.
     
    Dywyddyr likes this.
  19. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,915
    I think his point was more that talking about / theorizing about those topics (such as ghosts, aliens, etc) is all well and good, but trying to pass them off as cold-stone facts without some serious evidence is bad juju. Tack on simply ignoring evidence that contradicts what is being said, and we have arrived at Intellectual Dishonesty station.
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, then, I suppose I must agree, without ever having seen the debate or given it more than a scant eye-scan. Eh. It's probably so.
     
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    Intellectual dishonesty is a specific charge based on a moral judgment of a person's motive and intent to deceive. Which requires alot of guesswork by the accuser. That's all it is. It isn't ignoring someone's argument or evidence or misquoting someone or quote mining or anything else. Seems to me it's now being used as the catchall charge by which to punish any member who happens to piss off a moderator. Much as the broad generic charge of "heresy" was used in the Dark Ages to burn at the stake whoever made trouble for the Church. Is that what it's come to here folks? Trumped up charges now to silence posters who you disagree with?
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,474
    How much "guesswork" is required when the dishonesty has been brought to the offender's attention - with quite specific clarifications on where the dishonesty was applied - and he still persists in it or avoids replying altogether.

    Nope: factual "charges" to try and get the offender to respond with some integrity.
    Failing such a response then, ideally, not only "silence" but permaban the culprit.
     
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,325
    If a poster doesn't agree with your accessment that they are being dishonest, they certainly have to right to do that. The burden will then be on you to prove they are being dishonest and deliberately deceptive, something very hard to do. Again, it all boils down to the subjective feelings of the accuser, which are often already clouded with hostility towards the accused and a desire to shut him up because he will not agree with them. How do we know the very attempt to punish someone for dishonesty isn't itself laden with a personal agenda to censor the opposing view? We don't. That's why its a bad idea as an infractionable or bannable offence. Because it can always be twisted by someone towards getting rid of someone they don't like, particularly when you have a moderator also so embroiled in the debate he has lost all objectivity to properly moderate anymore.
     
    Yazata and sculptor like this.

Share This Page