Things the Intellectually Honest Individual Should Practice

1. Acknowledge when you do not know something by saying, “I don’t know,” especially when faced with questions lacking evidence or rational arguments. This recognition serves as a valuable starting point for inquiry.
2. Be aware of logical fallacies, which pose a continual threat to sound reasoning. Anyone committed to intellectual honesty should familiarize themselves with these fallacies to identify them in both their own reasoning and in others' arguments. It is crucial to eliminate such fallacies from one’s discourse and to apologize for unintentional use.
3. Remember that the absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. Arguing from a position of ignorance—claiming, for instance, “You have no evidence for your claim, hence mine must be true”—is intellectually dishonest. Anyone asserting a claim outside of the “I don’t know” framework must provide supporting evidence or logical reasoning, even for negative assertions like “There are no unicorns,” which can be particularly challenging to prove.
4. When confronted with conflicting evidence, an intellectually honest person acknowledges the counter-evidence and bases their argument on a balanced consideration of evidence for and against their viewpoint.
5. A critical thinker must recognize that both type 1 errors (believing falsehoods) and type 2 errors (disregarding truths) are equally detrimental in the pursuit of truth. Thus, one should avoid the “skeptic’s fallacy” of disproportionately weighting evidence against a claim relative to supporting evidence.
6. While it is true that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” this principle can be misused by skeptics who label unfavorable theories as “extraordinary.” A more nuanced approach recognizes that descriptions of reality must be internally consistent; thus, if a new claim challenges this consistency, its evidence must match or exceed the collective evidence supporting existing theories. Science offers a coherent description of the world across various domains, from quantum mechanics to astrophysics. If a new idea fails to align with this scientific consensus, it is likely to face significant scrutiny.
7. Lying is unethical for numerous reasons. It erodes trust and creates confusion within our own minds. Most importantly, everyone has the right to know the truth; lying deprives them of that right. Being intellectually honest entails not only knowing the truth but also ensuring that others have access to it.
8. The principle of truth-telling is not absolute; it must be weighed against the moral obligation to avoid causing harm to others and to promote collective well-being. Some truths may be inconvenient and could range from lifestyle clashes to potentially harmful revelations. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that just because something is harmful does not render it false. This fallacy, known as “arguing from adverse consequences,” often permeates politically correct discourses. The world exists independently of our preferences or ethical frameworks. If we are aware that a truth may harm someone, we need not disseminate it, and we might have a moral obligation to withhold it. For instance, scientific findings that could foster racism or sexism should be challenged and not widely shared until rigorously examined.
9. Lying encompasses more than simply making false statements; there are subtle forms of dishonesty, such as lying by omission, where one implies they are providing full truth while withholding critical information. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that individuals are not obligated to disclose everything they know; secrets can be kept. What is unethical is selectively presenting facts to support one’s viewpoint while omitting others. Another subtle form of dishonesty arises from misrepresenting the certainty with which one knows something. It is common for individuals to inflate their expertise in areas where they have not thoroughly researched. The ethical approach is to provide context regarding the extent of one’s knowledge. Exaggerations, personal attacks, and rhetorical manipulations also represent attempts to distort the truth for personal gain.
10. Hypocrisy is equally unethical. When we recognize something as true, we must strive to act in alignment with that truth, or at the very least, acknowledge when we fail to do so.
11. Wishful thinking and negative thoughts stemming from self-doubt and insecurity are constant temptations. It is essential to become aware of how emotions influence our ideas and perspectives, striving for the most impartial viewpoint possible. Personally, I explore my thoughts and emotions through practices like meditation and mindfulness.
12. Importantly, this does not imply that everything we express must be based on factual information. Life would be dull without fiction, fantasy, opinions, and speculation. However, we should aim to label these expressions accurately. The distinction between speculation, opinion, and fact-based statements can be inherently ambiguous, but this ambiguity is necessary to preserve creativity.

The Adversaries of Intellectual Honesty

Dogmatism entails asserting an idea as the truth while dismissing any contradictory evidence or arguments. Major sources of dogmatism include religious beliefs and political ideologies. While certain religions, such as Buddhism, value inquiry, others—like Christianity and Islam—often consider faith, or belief without evidence, a moral virtue. Even those that ostensibly endorse free inquiry harbor unquestioned beliefs. In the 19th century, Thomas Huxley, a biologist and early advocate of the Theory of Evolution, posited that believing in the absence of evidence constitutes a moral failing and termed his perspective “agnosticism.” Over time, agnosticism came to signify indecision regarding belief in God. I prefer to refer to Huxley’s original idea as “Strong Agnosticism.” This perspective emphasizes that it is unethical to accept beliefs lacking evidence, drawing a clear distinction between the statements “I do not believe in God” (intellectually honest) and “I believe there is no God” (which requires evidence).

Ideologies often mirror religious dogmatism in their disregard for truth standards. However, I do not contend that ideologies are inherently negative. They can provide coherent worldviews that effectively promote meaningful change. Like religions, ideologies gain strength through unwavering belief among followers, creating an environment conducive to dogmatism. Nevertheless, the deceptions woven by ideologies tend to be more nuanced than the stark tenets of religious faith. They may involve framing reality in ways that highlight select aspects while obscuring others. For instance, Marxism emphasizes class struggle and material wealth production while downplaying the significance of freedom and non-material values. Capitalism, in turn, focuses on material wealth, rationalizing inequality through assumptions about inherently selfish human behavior. Extremist positions within feminism may view all issues through a gender disparity lens, attributing various societal ills to patriarchal structures. Animal rights activists may exaggerate human-animal similarities while overlooking crucial differences and the moral contracts that underpin human rights. Moreover, ideologies can distort truth by starting with a preconceived notion and then selectively seeking supporting evidence, leading to rationalization and confabulation—two common forms of self-deception. I do not advocate discarding all ideologies—indeed, I identify as socialist, feminist, and sex-positive—but we should scrutinize them when they become dogmatic or restrict inquiry.

Political correctness represents a modern manifestation of thought control through language manipulation and the exclusion of certain ideas. Under the guise of equality and respect, it deems specific words and concepts too immoral to express publicly, punishing those who dare to voice them. Political correctness stifles ideas rather than engaging with them, ultimately fostering bigotry by allowing unchallenged beliefs to flourish.

Political correctness embodies dogmatism; when one cannot express an idea, they cannot assess its truthfulness. Its challenges extend beyond censorship; it actively promotes unexamined ideas, such as “mansplaining” or “speciesism,” which lack critical evaluation and cannot be critiqued.

Another troubling aspect of political correctness is its conflation of opinion and behavior. For example, suggesting that rehabilitation is possible for pedophiles may result in being labeled as one.

Additionally, political correctness often leads to the belief that our gender, race, or nationality conditions our thoughts, justifying censorship by dismissing individuals based on identity rather than the merit of their ideas.

Lastly, “bullshit” transcends mere lying; it involves ongoing discourse that disregards truth for the sake of bolstering one’s ego or social standing. In the podcast Making Sense, Sam Harris posits that President Trump's statements are not just lies; they are bullshit, as he utters whatever entertains his supporters and elicits emotional reactions. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not unique to Trump but is prevalent among many politicians and public figures.

The urgent need for greater intellectual honesty in contemporary discourse—particularly in politics—cannot be overstated. However, critical thinkers face significant resistance from both ends of the political spectrum. Challenging entrenched beliefs can incite considerable backlash; throughout history, religions have punished dissenters with torture and death, while modern political correctness can ruin careers. To combat this alarming trend toward dogmatism, we must establish intellectual honesty, critical thinking, and free speech as foundational values in our societies.