Talk:Integrity

Environmental Integrity

There is no mention of environmental integrity despite it redirecting to this page. It's an important aspect of environmental ethics, especially since Leopold, the origin of one of the first ecocentric ethics in the west, mentions it as one of the things relevant in determining if an action is right or wrong according to his land ethic. 76.78.203.193 (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Linguistic Note

From a purely linguistic view, "integrity" is an odd word. To define the word by part of speech, "integrity" is a noun; yet it is always used as a descriptor of nouns, both abstract and concrete. In other words, intergrity is only used in English in the "***** has integrity" format. But while the word "integrity" is always used to describe nouns, there is no adjective form of the word (ie., no integrious, integritious). This is especially odd if the etymology of the "integrity" is correct and it comes from the Latin adjective, "integer." I am certain there are more words like this. ssssssss

How to earn integrity and the right way

Many people say that integrity is always good, but you have to earn it by your behavior, do the right things, listen and be friendly to all people, follow ALL laws and rules, but most of all be responsible. If you pass that task or not it's who you are and how you are. Don't try to be good be yourself and if your bad your bad, but if your good your good. Integrity means a lot of things but, thats what I believe. Please listen to this paragraph it will get you somewhere one day or any other day, because this helped me.

I added that Integrity also refers to Accuracy. In Information Assurance, accuracy of information is a vital principle. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

More Integrity Notes

Forgive my ignorance of customary formatting. Regarding the above linguistic note: You may want to look into ontology. The nouns you refer to are considered properties and only exist (depending on the theory) insofar as they are predicated of another existent. See also predication, universals, particulars. This is off the top of my head, but it might help you approach your goal.

As far as ontology/epistemology is concerned, what you said about ontology is valid only for nominalist and eventually for conceptualist theories. Realist theories say that properties really exist. E.g., the property of having beauty (being beautiful) is due to participating to the Idea of Beauty. Beauty exists in itself. Even the language tells it "She has beauty", i.e. she owns a piece of the Idea of Beauty. Altough, from a realist standpoint, more correctly it would be said that she participates in Beauty, or that Beauty has her.

Further, "quality" is also a noun. There is no "qualitous" or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgeorgescu (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Observation in respect to integrity tests

As said, there is an easy way to cheat at integrity tests. But not all answers have to be a 100% agreement with the mentioned attributes, because no person in that area is so dumb in order for him/her to believe in a 100% perfect integrity score. Tgeorgescu 10:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Every other Drama of Integrity

I think this article needs a little beefing out, and not in the form it has been getting recently. There are so many statements that are merely opinion, but stated as fact. I have no problem with this, as long as they are used as quotes of someone who thought that way. If you (67.183.136.6 and many others) want to create a page detailing why you think the way you do about integrity that is well written and presents its arguments persuasively on your own site and cite your opinion here, go ahead. Otherwise, keep the article clean.

Also, shouldn't there be separate articles for the different kinds of integrity? I was actually looking online for a good explanation of integrity as it applies to material science, and nothing came up at all. I can't find my copy of Engineering Alloys, which had an excellent definition if I remember correctly. If I find the book I shall make a page posthaste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sortitus (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There are some parts to this page that appear to be accurate but there are a couple of sections that could use major improvement. "Evaluating/measuring integrity" seems to be inferring much more than is reasonable from the use of language. I believe that integrity is generally viewed as being a continuous variable not "all-or-nothing." The "all-or-nothing" example merely demonstrates people using an extreme form when it is not truly intended that way. Similarly when people say "last scraps" of integrity, they are not measuring integrity in a unit called "scraps" nor are any properties of "scraps" implied by that usage. It merely means "a relatively small amount". The section "(Tests of) professional integrity" does not explain how these tests work or provide any citations. The first sentence in that section is ok and I think can be taken at face value. The rest as far as I can tell is wild conjecture so should be removed. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole article reeks of exactly that which I suspected... that "integrity" is a weakly defined concept that noone really knows exactly what it is.

We need citations for this and lots of 'em. Otherwise thise whole article becomes a subject for deletion. --J-Star (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Disappearance of material

On 2008-09-26 at 0556 hours an unregistered Wikipedian using a previously non-editing IP address removed almost 50 percent of this article, obliterating multiple tags and eliminating various views of integrity without making any comment. Failing an explanation on the Talk-page, I propose to restore the deleted material. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article from massive vandalism committed by a group of cultists called "Psycans", who spread their ideology as if it were a mainstream scientific fact. E.g., there are no (nummerical) measures for ethical values -- the edit made by Psycans is a complete rant. I suggest that this page become protected by moderators, and that the vandals (often known only by their IP's) are banned from Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it plain vandalism? First, deleting relevant information without due reason (we may guess that the adepts of Psycanics feel extremely uncomfortable with mainstream viewpoints, thus seek to delete mainstream information from Wikipedia...). Second, as written by User:Hgilbert on October 29, 2007, "Wikipedia does have clear guidelines about an editor not putting in his/her own formulations, even if based upon a carefully built case and backed up with evidence; instead, we as editors should report on the conclusions drawn by authorities in the field. It's well worth reading the guidelines as to where the line is to be drawn between reporting on conclusions and drawing one's own. ... By the way, only peer-reviewed, print-published, non-polemical sources should be used; see Verifiability standards to clarify this (and for exceptions)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgeorgescu (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Undoing my recovery of "Integrity"

I want to ask you what is the depth and the breadth of a value system? Are they measured in centimeters? Why value systems should be congruent "with a wider range of observations"? What does that mean? Does it mean that the subculture having those values has to generate realistic behavior (as opposed to idealistic behavior)? Does it mean that they have to behave as they preach? Why do people are required to account for the discrepancy between parts of a value system? Does it matter at all how they construct such account? Or they are simply hypocrite, regardless of how they account for this discrepance?

I remind you that "This article is about the ethical concept. For other uses, see Integrity (disambiguation)." So, I suggest to move the contributions about mathematical integrity elsewhere, or start an article Integrity (mathematics).

Further I do not understand what those titles Testing via... mean. Do they mean that one tests (measures) integrity? A scientific theory is falsified or not falsified, it is falsifiable or not falsifiable. So what is that discussion about testing (measuring) integrity? How does one measure how much scientific integrity some theory has? The scientific integrity means "The integrity of science is based on a set of testing principles known as the scientific method. To the extent that a proof follows the requirements of the method, it is considered scientific. The scientific method includes measures to ensure unbiased testing and the requirement that the hypothesis have falsifiability." I.e. integrity is specific to the scientific community when it operates 100% as it should (as in Merton's norms). It is not a characteristic of scientific theories.

A reader cannot understand what psychological integrity tests are about, as the article looks at this time. It writes: "Testing via Psychological Tests The pretension of such tests to detect fake answers plays a crucial role in this respect, because the naive really believe such outright lies and behave accordingly, reporting their past deviance because they fear that otherwise their answers will reveal it. The more Pollyannaish the answers, the higher the integrity score.[1]" This is too elliptic to be understandable. It does not say what these tests measure and what their use is.

Further, I know of no (serious) consistent values system. The more serious and respectable a value system is, the more contradictions it seems to contain. This is because the accuse of hypocrisy is itself hyppocrite, since nobody lives at the top (height) of his/her moral and political ideals, so it is hypocritical to blame others for not living 100% by their own book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides, General Relativity is not a value system (see the definition there), since Einstein was a scientist, not a moral preacher. He did not preach moral values in the General Relativity.

What does it mean "A system with perfect integrity yields a singular extrapolation," when speaking of moral values? Does it mean anything at all? How can one extrapolate moral values? Or is it simply nonsense? It uses a scientific jargon, but here stops the good I see in it. I remind you that you are not Spinoza, constructing a moral system more geometrico demonstrata, using your own definitions. Where these definitions come from? Can you show their sources? I could find nothing like that in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Just some congruence between consistence of moral values and integrity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the list of users who agree that integrity (ethical concept) cannot be measured or tested, and to assume otherwise is a hoax:

User:Sortitus User:216.36.186.2 User:J-Star User:Pedant17 User:Tgeorgescu

Otherwise, start an article about Integrity (mathematics) with mentioning how scientific theories are said in the philosophy of mathematics to have integrity, what that means, and what is the source for that meaning in mainstream scientific-philosophic literature. I cannot immagine that there are nummerical measures or tests for such integrity (mathematical concept), since the philosophy of mathematics operates with concepts, not with nummerical measures.

To put it bluntly, it is a lame thing to say that integrity (ethical concept) could be measured or tested. It is sheer nonsense, and you should not mix the philosophy of mathematics with ethics and psychological tests.

I also support censorship of this article by moderators, and I affirm that persisting in this version of this article is an exercise in confusion and nonsense. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What this means?

The following affirmation from "Integrity in ethics" sounds like utter rubbish to me: "If we define a value as an assumption upon which to extrapolate either implementation or other values, then a value system emerges as a set of consistent values and measures." So, help me out of my ignorance: how in God's name is one able to extrapolate a moral value? Use the square to make it right? How does one plot moral values on a graph? How does one then draw then a line to extrapolate a single moral value? What is the "implementation" of a value? Does it mean anything at all? Or is it just sheer nonsense?

[Comment: This was not my edit, and I do find it a little obscure, but my own interpretation of the word "extrapolate" in this context is "to use as the basis for action in the real world." So, to extrapolate implementation from a value would be to act in an actual situation based upon that value. Diversitti (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC) ]

Further, most people do not have value systems, they merely have moral values (i.e. when they do not behave as total materialists). Value systems are specific to original moral philosophers. Most people lack the ability to think abstractly and systematically upon moral matters, therefore they cannot possible have value systems, meaning a coherent and principal set of moral values. The article "The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail:. A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment." by Jonathan Haidt makes it clear that most (normal) people are unable to think in moral questions, and simply rationalize their gut feelings. Therefore, a moral system seems to be present only in books from the library, not in flesh and blood people. Alexander Herzberg's study "The Psychology of Philosophers" shows that even the people who wrote such books did not practice such value systems. We may therefore conclude that value systems are alien to human morality, and only appear in sterile discussions furthered among bookworms. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Alleged relevance of something called "the Scientific Method"

I detect an occasional trend here to narrow (without discussion) the treatment of some aspects of integrity in the light of something referred to as the "the Scientific Method": see for example this edit or [this edit. Linkage to Scientific method appears quite inappropriate in this respect, as that article discusses multiple methods, not some sort of straw-man caricature of science (for which I have -- so far -- failed to find a Wikipedia article to link to). In the meantime we lack any sort of Wikipedic-quality reliable source for linking integrity with scientific methodology in the first place. -- Absent citations and quotes -- or at least discussion of this matter on this talk-page -- I propose removing or re-generalizing or re-precisifying this contentious/tendentious/peripheral material. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I read your discussion with Tudor Georgescu where you claimed that the Scientific Method is a conspiracy of the cult of Psycans. Wikipedia isn't a chronicle of your religious beliefs. We don't make religious judgment calls about information here. We simply provide notable information and let readers make the determination of relevance to their own lives. Even if the cult of Psycans existed, and even if it were the most evil thing on Earth, we're still going to include information about the concept known as "Scientific Method" and its verifiable relationship to other concepts. Wikipedia doesn't limit notable, publicly available information just because certain religious beliefs don't agree with it. --Charter Member (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I have no recollection of ever having discussed Psycans wth Tudor, I'll ignore your comment on that until such time as I see evidence. I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia does not chronicle my religious beliefs (if any). I invite proof that the fine article on scientific method has some relationship with the discussion of something entirely different -- referred to in the Integrity article as "the Scientific Method" -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment about Psycans was mine, and indeed some adepts of Psycanism have edited the article according to their ideology of their own cult. I did not say that the article on Scientific Method would be rubbish (read it, it is well documented). However, it is a straw man to say that science has a (i.e. one) method. There are various scientific knowledge theories, the most popular being Popper's falsificationism, wherein a theory is scientific if falsifiable and it is accepted until a falsification has been produced (I'd wish science were that simple...). However, scientific knowledge theories often project a method (which is in the eye of the beholder) upon the collective process of doing science, and in the eyes of such beholder science appears to have some method, i.e. the method projected by the philosopher. In fact this is reductionism and I think the way science gets done, starting from doing research during one's university study, then publishing articles and scientific journals and making a scientific career, a single method cannot explain how science is done. If a philosopher reduces the collective process of doing science to a single method, then the philosopher is overly optimistic about his own theory, and does not see that science is done pretty anarchically, i.e. as Shapin and Schaffer characterised the scientific revolution: disparate actions taken by unconnected individuals who only shared an interest for doing science and inventing technological devices. As my teacher of sociology of science told us, till the end of the 19th century, science and technique were pretty much unconnected to each other, and they only merged with the occasion of the need for theoretical chemistry knowledge in producing synthetic colorants.

It could be that one of the scientific methods employed by scientists characterises scientific theories as having integrity, but this has to be documented with quotes from mainstream sources and it certainly does not have to be presented as the only scientific method: just see how complex is the article on the Scientific Method, it contains so many viewpoints that indeed science does not have a method, but it has many methods, there are so many aspects to consider when doing science that extrapolating the methods of a discipline (e.g. Nuclear physics) to another discipline (e.g. Textual criticism) is simply misleading, although both are science. Do theories from textual criticism have to have integrity (what does integrity mean for such theories?), as natural science theories are supposed to have? Or is it that integrity of theories is not "the scientific method" but simply some aspect of natural science? Is integrity the same as reliability (from statistics)?

Besides, the idea behind this Wikipedia article was that it has to do with Integrity as in ethics, and some other articles could be written to document Integrity (mathematics) Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

edit-warring

On May 22, 2009 at 1332 hours, a Wikipedian reverted edits without explanation. In so doing, we lost an attempt at more nuanced views, broader perceptions, and several tag-appeals (such as {{citequote}} and {{fact}}) for clarification and elucidation: see http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Integrity&diff=291610776&oldid=289653944 Absent justification of the changes of May 22, I propose to restore material from previous versions as appropriate. -- Pedant17 (talk)

Requested quotes

I cannot offer quotes from drs. R.J.A.M. Hulst's college, since it was a spoken college. On Van Minden's fame: in october 2006 was printed the 23rd revised print of the mentioned book. Having one's book printed anew 23 times says something about how popular such book is.

"Twee belangrijke uitgangspunten bij het gebruik van deze 'integriteitstests' (dat klinkt prettiger dan eerlijkheids- of leugentests) zijn: 1 Ze hebben een hoge validiteit en betrouwbaarheid. 2 De solicitant kan zich hierop niet voorbereiden, noch de test doorgronden; het zijn dus robuste instrumenten.

De werkelijkheid legt de zwakheden van deze tests bloot...

Schriftelijke tests

De schriftelijke integriteitstests zijn gemakkelijk af te nemen. Ze zijn gebaseerd op enkele aannamen, die er duidelijk in zijn terug te vinden:

Minder eerlijke personen: 1 rapporteren een grotere mate van oneerlijk gedrag 2 zijn geneigd eerder oneerlijk gedrag te verontschuldigen 3 zijn geneigd meer excuses of redenen voor diefstal aan te voeren 4 denken vaker over diefstal 5 zien vaker oneerlijk gedrag als acceptabel 6 zijn vaker implusief 7 zijn geneigd zichzelf en anderen zwaarder te straffen" (Van Minden, 2006:207).

Translation:

"Two important assumptions in the use of 'integrity tests' (they sound nicer than honesty or lies tests) are: 1 They have a high validity and reliability. 2 The person who wants to be employed neither can he/she prepare himself/herself for the test, nor can he/she understand the test; therefore they are robust instruments.

The reality exposes the weaknesses of such tests...

Written tests

The written integrity tests are easy to perform. They are based on some assumptions, which are clearly found therein:

Less honest persons: 1 they report a higher amount of dishonest behavior 2 they are more prone to find excuses for dishonest behavior 3 they are more prone to name excuses or reasons for theft 4 they think often about theft 5 they see often dishonest behavior as acceptable 6 they are often impulsive 7 they are prone to punish themselves and others severely" (loc. cit.)

I think this is fair use of Van Minden's book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes. Do they come from van Minden's cited book? Can we find a page-number? -- Discussion on the merits and reputation of van Minden might take place more appropriately at J. J. R. van Minden or on the talk-page of that article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they come from his book, mentioned inside the article. As stated above in a Harvard-style quotation, they come from page 207. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

The Integrity of the article, in particular the subsection on ethics, seems to be seriously flawed. At least I cannot bring together Immanuel Kant, Ayn Rand and Ted Bundy...--Olag (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The point about Bundy was: one could have integrity in doing evil, not just in doing the good. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. Ayn Rand wasn't a notable ethicist, anyway. --Lucas (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Integrity

Urdu 45.206.3.33 (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Integrity By Sexy Women

Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values.[1][2][3] In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can stand in opposition to hypocrisy,[4] in that judging with the standards of integrity involves regarding internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding within themselves apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs. The word integrity evolved from the Latin adjective integer, meaning whole or complete.[1] In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character.[5] As such, one may judge that others "have integrity" to the extent that they act according to the values, beliefs and principles they claim to hold.

In ethics

In politics

In psychological/work-selection tests

In other disciplines

See also

Notes

External links

Last edited 3 days ago by 27.85.207.242 RELATED ARTICLES Potter Box Secular ethics Branch of moral philosophy 2A00:23C7:9C9C:2A01:188A:7F66:7CAD:B39F (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)