Talk:Intellectual responsibility

Additions

Putting my recent additions here to discuss quotability and other issues. Peter1c (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• A lot of people's support for politicians who say things that aren't true isn't because they believe those statements per se, but they view that misinformation as supporting political goals that they believe in.
  • Ethan Poskanzer, summarizing research results from a collaborative research by Rice University, Carnegie Mellon and MIT, "Facts ignored: The truth is flexible when falsehoods support political beliefs" by Katy Marquardt Hill, CU Boulder Today, 3/4/2024

• Noble lies ... are like potato chips: it is hard to stop with just one.
  • Michael P. Lynch. (2016). The internet of us: Knowing more and understand less in the Age of Big Data. Liveright Publishing.

• Post-truth is pre-fascism.
  • Timothy Snyder. (2017). On tyranny: Twenty lessons from the twentieth century. Random House.

@Peter1c: You seem to have a taste for clever and suggestive quotations, whereas I am more interested in informational value and reasoning. For the topic of intellectual responsibility, which is a topic largely about reasoning, I would prefer quotations that show some reasoning and/or that clearly mention intellectual/epistemic/doxastic/rational responsibility, and that help clarify what it is. But I am probably thinking more like a Wikipedia editor than a Wikiquote editor, and indeed that may be why I spend my time at Wikipedia instead of here.

I have to do mental acrobatics to invent a chain of reasoning in my head that connects these quotations to the topic of intellectual responsibility. I would prefer that such reasoning be explicit in the quotations, so that it's clear how the quotations are relevant to the topic.

• It's not clear to me how the Poskanzer quote relates to intellectual responsibility. The article that it is quoted from says that the main issue here is "moral flexibility". Can a person be morally flexible and intellectually responsible? Perhaps. It's an interesting question, but I would prefer a quotation that makes such a question, or its answer, more explicit, instead of being only about moral flexibility as this quotation is.
• The Lynch quotation is like a fragment of analogical reasoning, but it doesn't tell us why Lynch thinks it is a good analogy and how the topic of lying relates to intellectual responsibility, which is an interesting question that I would like to know more about but that this quotation fails to illuminate for me. This is similar to the Poskanzer issue in that both are about morality, but since I'm not familiar with the quoted sources, what I really want to know is how those authors relate the moral issues that they mention to intellectual responsibility.
• There is no reasoning at all in the Snyder quotation and no mention of intellectual responsibility. I'm really left wanting more with this one.

That's my feedback, which is about relevance and informational value rather than quotability. You can choose whether you want to improve the quotations (e.g. by expanding them or finding alternatives) based on this feedback. Biogeographist (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Quotations exceeding WQ length guidelines

Proposed shortening (if any) indicated in bold

Robert Audi

This is interesting that Audi breaks down intellectual responsibility into two forms of liability to criticism, content responsibility (liability of content to criticism) and genetic responsibility (liability of method of inquiry, genealogy of content, etc. to criticism). I don't think the first sentence is really comprehensible outside the context of the article. See Wikiquote:Theme pages on requirement for comprehensibility of quotations out of their context.

The five standards are also interesting, but could potentially be subject to a similar objection? We can discuss this further. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter1c (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC) (UTC)

• I have distinguished two major dimensions of intellectual responsibility conceived as liability to criticism: content and genetic responsibility. I have contrasted this liability with prospective intellectual responsibility and have articulated five kinds of standards governing fulfillment of the latter. They call for seeking evidence, for attempting to achieve a kind of reflective equilibrium, for focusing in a certain way on grounds for our beliefs, for our making interpersonal comparisons in grounds and cognitions, and for rectifying certain disproportions in our own cognitive systems. Intellectual responsibility is particularly important where we encounter what we justifiedly believe is disagreement with an epistemic peer and, especially, where moral judgments on important matters are in question, as they often are in the contemporary world.
  • Robert Audi, "The Ethics of Belief and the Morality of Action: Intellectual Responsibility and Rational Disagreement", Philosophy, 86(1), 5–29 (2011)

I basically agree with you: I think the concepts are important, but Audi does not summarize them in a stylish way. I read the article and there is no better summary elsewhere in it. He reiterates his five standards in a later publication that is slightly better stated but still not comprehensible enough apart from the publication:

• I have described five kinds of standards governing fulfillment of intellectual responsibilities. These standards demand seeking evidence, attempting to achieve reflective equilibrium in our belief systems, focusing in a certain way on normative grounds for our beliefs, making interpersonal comparisons in grounds and cognitions, and rectifying certain disproportions in our own cognitive systems. These standards indicate some important kinds of responses an intellectually responsible person will make to rational disagreement.
  • Robert Audi, "Intellectual Responsibility and the Scope of the Will", Epistemic Duties: New Arguments, New Angles (Kevin McCain and Scott Stapleford, eds., Routledge, 2021), p. 91

But this is already summarized in the Wikipedia stub article Intellectual responsibility, so there's no great need to include it here. Biogeographist (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

J. B. Bury on John Morley

I really like this addition, but it has two problems: (1) length and (2) extensive inclusion of material from another source.

I added the John Morley quotations from their original source, and article includes one quote with J. B. Bury's eloquent paraphrase. Please feel free to let me know if this adequately represents the helpful content you have added to the page.

• These years also saw the appearance of Mr. John Morley's sympathetic studies of the French freethinkers of the eighteenth century, Voltaire (1872), Rousseau (1873), and Diderot (1878). He edited the Fortnightly Review, and for some years this journal was distinguished by brilliant criticisms on the popular religion, contributed by able men writing from many points of view. A part of the book which he afterwards published under the title Compromise appeared in the Fortnightly in 1874. In Compromise, "the whole system of objective propositions which make up the popular belief of the day" is condemned as mischievous, and it is urged that those who disbelieve should speak out plainly. Speaking out is an intellectual duty.

[propose to separate here into separate quotation]

• Englishmen have a strong sense of political responsibility, and a correspondingly weak sense of intellectual responsibility. Even minds that are not commonplace are affected for the worse by the political spirit which "is the great force in throwing love of truth and accurate reasoning into a secondary place."

[propose to separate here into separate quotation]

• The principles which have prevailed in politics have been adopted by theology for her own use. In the one case, convenience first, truth second; in the other, emotional comfort first, truth second.

[propose to separate here into separate quotation]

• If the immorality is less gross in the case of religion, there is "the stain of intellectual improbity." And this is a crime against society, for "they who tamper with veracity from whatever motive are tampering with the vital force of human progress." The intellectual insincerity which is here blamed is just as prevalent to-day.
  • J. B. Bury, "The Progress of Rationalism", A History of Freedom of Thought (Henry Holt, 1913), pp. 220–222

Here I would suggest finding these phrases in their original context and including attributed directly to Morley.

My word counter says the quote is 251 words, so, yes, only one word over the 250-word limit! Shame on me! Biogeographist (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

There is that word count limit, but also each quotation is intended to be succinct and quotable. See Wikiquote:Quotability. There is also a requirement that quotations be widely quoted, but this is not enforced in cases where other editors recognize the importance or eloquence of a particular quotation. I know you understand that contributions are subject to review, so I am surprised you would be surprised by it. I'm also surprised that you have found this review process more difficult than on wikipedia, where my experience has been quite humiliating. Your contributions are appreciated. Peter1c (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

My previous comment was intended to be jocular, which may not have come through. I didn't say more because I'm not especially concerned about this quotation. Reviewing it now, I think what you did is fine. Biogeographist (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Alphabetical vs historical order

I will repeat here what I said in response to Peter1c in this edit to my talk page.

The Wikiquote:Guide to layout says, "Quotes should appear sorted alphabetically by author, except where historical development of the subject makes chronological order particularly appropriate." I see a clear historical development in these quotations, from earlier perspectives strongly inspired by theology in the case of Descartes and Locke at the top to more humanistic perspectives toward the bottom (e.g. Rorty), with some transitional figures in the middle, notably Dewey. And later thinkers sometimes explicitly build on the thought of previous thinkers: Dewey explicitly refers to Locke in one quotation; Chisholm refers to Stevenson (not in the quoted passage, but in a nearby footnote); etc.

When I greatly expanded this page in this edit, I deliberately organized the page in historical order. Peter1c destroyed this work and reorganized everything in alphabetical order (and then told me that people "do not appreciate" how I organized the page, when it was for a good reason).

I would prefer to return the organization of the page to historical order, and I will do so if there are no objections. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC) & 14:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I hope you will accept my word on this and the word of other senior editors: chronologically ordered theme pages are much harder to maintain. When a new quote is added, it takes far longer to find the correct location. Theme pages that are organized on nonalphabetic lines end up totally disorganized. I am usually the one who has to clean it up. Peter1c (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Peter1c: Wow. I've contributed by far the most content to this page; you unilaterally reorganized it, and then you called me "absurd, arrogant, and really offensive", "not showing proper respect", and "hacking" this site? In my many years of editing English Wikipedia, I've never experienced such aggression from another editor. Biogeographist (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Please leave the page alphabetical until you obtain consensus from the community to reorganize it. Alphabetic organization works better, that is why it is used in the vast majority of theme pages. Peter1c (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

There were only four quotations on a tiny stub page when I greatly expanded the page in my first edit. With such a large addition of material, it was going to be reorganized one way or the other; the reorganization just happened to be not your preference. I won't change it back, since you have strong feelings about it, but don't scold me. My first edit to Wikiquote was almost a decade ago, and while I've chosen to focus on English Wikipedia instead of Wikiquote, I am not so inexperienced that you should hold it against me as a reason why I shouldn't have reorganized the page as I did. Biogeographist (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Biogeographist, I apologize I am overreacting so much on this. To put it in context, there are other difficult cases senior editors are now dealing with. I really appreciate your additions to this article. I put them into alphabetical order, intending to return and review them in detail. The ones I have reviewed so far are very helpful and relevant additions to the article. As I find issues, I am moving things to the talk page for discussion. Thank you for your patience with me, as I am not always as diplomatic as I should be, or as master of my emotions. It is clear I have not met my obligation to reflection, as I realized from reading your excellent additions. I apologize if I have made you feel unwelcome. If so, this is not intentional. Peter1c (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

A further explanation on the alphabetical vs. chronological question: I can see that in many ways the finished article is more useful to the reader when chronologically organized. The problem is that the most common scenario on Wikiquote is that an editor comes to a page to contribute a quote and is looking for the correct location. People get impatient if the organization is not obvious. The result is that chronologically ordered theme pages end up becoming disorganized. There is not a clear convention whether quotes within a heading identifying a decade or other time period are to be chronological, or alphabetical within the chronological heading. These are some of the reasons why I and some of the other editors are wary of chronologically organized theme pages. I think it is also helpful to see quotations by the same author grouped together. If you are not satisfied with my position on this, we can move the discussion to the Village Pump and debate more there. I am not trying to discount your thoughts on how the page should be organized. I just think it requires more discussion before we can reach a consensual decision. Peter1c (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

If you are interested to continue discussion on this topic, I have created a topic in Wikiquote talk:Guide to layout. Peter1c (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)