Jump to content

'Lazy learner'


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What is the definition of intellectual honesty? It is an intentional method, it is not just sincere belief. Yes or no?

It is "honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth."  "Intellectual Honesty combines good faith with a primary motivation toward seeking true beliefs."

Intellectual dishonesty--"Intentionally committed fallacies and deception in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty."

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, bluebell said:

He believes he does know it for everyone. It would be intellectually dishonest for him to say otherwise, given what he believes he knows to be true.

Isn't this a big part of the whole prophetic fallibility thing,though? I expect you are correct that Pres. Nelson and others are teaching what they believe they know to be true. I even expect they are quite confident in their ability to discern truth (I'm reminded of this essay: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/yes-its-true-but-i-dont-think-they-like-to-hear-it-quite-that-way-what-spencer-w-kimball-told-elaine-cannon/ ). I'm sure Pres. Young was sure he knew the (now disavowed) reasons for denying Africans the priesthood. There are other examples, if we want to rehearse them. For me in my search for truth, while it is interesting to know what Pres. Nelson or other prophet/apostle believes he knows to be true, I'm much more interested in the actual truth. We look to prophets for knowledge of truth because we are told they have a special relationship to God so that their declarations of truth are (more likely to be?) actual truth, not just their version of what they believe. In my quest for truth, how useful are prophets if my only guarantee is the promise that they will be honest and sincere in teaching what they believe to be true, with no sense of whether or not their teachings are/were/will be the actual truth?

Link to post
1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

Isn't this a big part of the whole prophetic fallibility thing,though? I expect you are correct that Pres. Nelson and others are teaching what they believe they know to be true. I even expect they are quite confident in their ability to discern truth (I'm reminded of this essay: https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/yes-its-true-but-i-dont-think-they-like-to-hear-it-quite-that-way-what-spencer-w-kimball-told-elaine-cannon/ ). I'm sure Pres. Young was sure he knew the (now disavowed) reasons for denying Africans the priesthood. There are other examples, if we want to rehearse them. For me in my search for truth, while it is interesting to know what Pres. Nelson or other prophet/apostle believes he knows to be true, I'm much more interested in the actual truth. We look to prophets for knowledge of truth because we are told they have a special relationship to God so that their declarations of truth are (more likely to be?) actual truth, not just their version of what they believe. In my quest for truth, how useful are prophets if my only guarantee is the promise that they will be honest and sincere in teaching what they believe to be true, with no sense of whether or not their teachings are/were/will be the actual truth?

If any prophet ever taught that we should believe them just because they said something and they are the prophet, then I agree, that would not be very useful.  I'm very thankful that one of the main teachings of the church is to find out for ourselves and to not rely on what other people have told us.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is "honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth."  "Intellectual Honesty combines good faith with a primary motivation toward seeking true beliefs."

Intellectual dishonesty--"Intentionally committed fallacies and deception in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty."

From the source of that definition:

Quote

 

We have a moral duty to be honest. This duty is especially important when we share ideas that can inform or persuade others.

Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth.[1] Intellectual honesty pertains to any communication intended to inform or persuade. This includes all forms of scholarship, consequential conversations such as dialogue, debate, negotiations, product and service descriptions, various forms of persuasion, and public communications such as announcements, speeches, lectures, instruction, presentations, publications, declarations, briefings, news releases, policy statements, reports, religious instructions, social media posts, and journalism including not only prose and speech, but graphs, photographs, and other means of expression.

Intellectual Honesty combines good faith with a primary motivation toward seeking true beliefs.

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways including:

  • Ensuring support for chosen ideologies does not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
  • Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
  • Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
  • References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".[2]

Intentionally committed fallacies and deception in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty. We have a moral duty to be honest. This duty is especially important when we share ideas that can inform or persuade others.

 

It is not only the excerpt you posted. It is an intentional method.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

From the source of that definition:

It is not only the excerpt you posted. It is an intentional method.

I didn't post the other parts because I didn't want to copy and paste too much and there was nothing in the other parts that contradicted or changed what I said.  It is a method comprised of not allowing biases for ideologies interfere with seeking truth, not being dishonest in the sharing of the information or knowledge you find, and not plagiarizing. 

Which one of those are you claiming Pres. Nelson isn't doing?

 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I didn't post the other parts because I didn't want to copy and paste too much and there was nothing in the other parts that contradicted or changed what I said.  It is a method comprised of not allowing biases for ideologies interfere with seeking truth, not being dishonest in the sharing of the information or knowledge you find, and not plagiarizing. 

Which one of those are you claiming Pres. Nelson isn't doing?

 

 

The process he describes and supports does not seem to be an intentional "method comprised of not allowing biases for ideologies interfere with seeking truth." I've elaborated about this already and the harm it can cause.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The process he describes and supports does not seem to be an intentional "method comprised of not allowing biases for ideologies interfere with seeking truth." I've elaborated about this already and the harm it can cause.

Ok. I’ve elaborated on why I don’t agree. 

Link to post
22 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This statement intrigues me. If you are willing -- I'm mindful of the discomfort you've expressed -- how exactly did what you learnt as a PhD student lead you to re-evaluate events that you had personally participated in and/or other firsthand experiences?

I'm actually mentally stuck here. If an angel visits me during the night and gives me specific information that I later verify is accurate, I'm trying to imagine what approaches I might use to re-evaluate that experience, with or without new evidence, and what the outcome of that re-evaluation might look like.

Thanks!

I'm not sure how to answer your question as I've never experienced the "angel in the night" phenomenon as it relates to the truth claims of the Church.  All of the answers to prayers I experienced came in the form of feelings which were completely internal to me.  Additional understanding of cognitive biases caused me to re-evaluate the source and meaning of those feelings.  If God is sending out angels to confirm the Church's truth claims on a regular basis, I missed out on that experience, but would certainly welcome it if I am wrong in my current state of being.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

All of the answers to prayers I experienced came in the form of feelings which were completely internal to me.  Additional understanding of cognitive biases caused me to re-evaluate the source and meaning of those feelings. 

Many thanks for taking the time and being willing to answer my question. What you have explained now makes sense to me.

Quote

If God is sending out angels to confirm the Church's truth claims on a regular basis, I missed out on that experience, but would certainly welcome it if I am wrong in my current state of being.

:good:

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, ttribe said:

I'm not sure how to answer your question as I've never experienced the "angel in the night" phenomenon as it relates to the truth claims of the Church.  All of the answers to prayers I experienced came in the form of feelings which were completely internal to me.  Additional understanding of cognitive biases caused me to re-evaluate the source and meaning of those feelings.  If God is sending out angels to confirm the Church's truth claims on a regular basis, I missed out on that experience, but would certainly welcome it if I am wrong in my current state of being.

For me, those types of experiences can be explained as my own brain. Our own intuition, passive perception, combined with coincidence and belief about how life works can combine to create impressive psychological experiences.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...