Ohhhhh my oh my ... Quietlyleaving ...
Any university professor worth his/her salt would take issue with you for using Wikipedia as a source reference ... it is not peer reviewed, and contains too many opinions, and too little expert information.
You also failed to answer my questions ... which is a false argument form of "Slanting." Nothing in my statement you quoted belittled the person ... but rather made allowance for the person to misunderstand how intellectual dishonesty really works. Here is a more accurate definition:
Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of misleading impressions through the use of rhetoric, logical fallacy, fraud, or misrepresented evidence. It may stem from an ulterior motive, haste, sloppiness, or external pressure to reach a certain conclusion. - http://www.123exp-math.com/t/01704199459/
And you only quoted part of the definition used in Wikipedia ... so if you were being intellectually honest, you would have used the entire quote: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty: Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
- the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
- the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
- the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. [1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.
The terms intellectually dishonest and intellectual dishonesty are often used as rhetorical devices in a debate; the label invariably frames an opponent in a negative light. The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker's on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.
You only quoted the last part of the discussion ... a form of slanting, and also intellectually dishonest. Intellectual dishonesty can be done through ignorance ... and in that case would not be an overt act of lying.
