Assuming Mankkeli will leave this thread being that he exposed himself a little too much but nevertheless
here's some useful infromation.......
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] [dead link] 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.