I’m not in a political field myself, therefore I would like to address the politician by asking the following: “In a political environment and as a voting member of a party, let’s suppose your opposite rival party presents a proposal which you personally find to be more sensible than the proposal your own party presented instead. It is a win or loose situation, your vote is the decisive for the result. Which proposal would you vote for in this scenario?”
The answer would provide concrete proof of the level of intellectual honesty/dishonesty of the politician: - If the answer is to vote for their own party’s proposal, it would tell me that the politician lacks intellectually honesty. - If the answer is to vote the opposite party, it would tell me that the politician does not lack intellectual honesty.
The concept of Intellectual honesty can be summarized by following principles:
One’s personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s own convictions
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
Most importantly, intellectual honesty is defined by capabity to replace one’s previous beliefs in favor of better informed ones, and the capability to utilize imparcial reasoning.
In this light, I would ask the politician a reflection on the notion that perhaps intellectual dishonesty might be deeply embedded in political environment (religious too) and that the current partisan political models and the lack of intellectually honest discourse may actually be the main obstacle in the formation of reliable and transparent governance.
I’m not in a political field myself, therefore I would like to address the politician by asking the following:
“In a political environment and as a voting member of a party, let’s suppose your opposite rival party presents a proposal which you personally find to be more sensible than the proposal your own party presented instead. It is a win or loose situation, your vote is the decisive for the result.
Which proposal would you vote for in this scenario?”
The answer would provide concrete proof of the level of intellectual honesty/dishonesty of the politician:
- If the answer is to vote for their own party’s proposal, it would tell me that the politician lacks intellectually honesty.
- If the answer is to vote the opposite party, it would tell me that the politician does not lack intellectual honesty.
The concept of Intellectual honesty can be summarized by following principles:
One’s personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one’s own convictions
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
Most importantly, intellectual honesty is defined by capabity to replace one’s previous beliefs in favor of better informed ones, and the capability to utilize imparcial reasoning.
In this light, I would ask the politician a reflection on the notion that perhaps intellectual dishonesty might be deeply embedded in political environment (religious too) and that the current partisan political models and the lack of intellectually honest discourse may actually be the main obstacle in the formation of reliable and transparent governance.