The question was not posed naturally. They asked in an offended fashion if I was accusing them of dishonesty (well yes, selectively responding to and ignoring presented facts says “those are inconvenient truths I’d rather avoid discussing because it hurts my preferred position/views”).
No. “Disingenuous” is rhetoric used in the context of scientific debates and responses to other studies, without controversy.
Meaning the claims are not valid, not true, not representative, not correct, wrong, mischaracterizing, not genuine. It also means dishonest in science too.
FYI scientists don't use offense to a commonly used term to deflect an opposing view and facts/data. Scientists may partake in highly spirited and civil debates and may call out bias, hypocrisy, lies, and any number of things that plausibly explain opposing incongruent (claims incompatible with facts/data) positions including: idealism, politics, institutionalism, naivety, wishful thinking and so on.
This is the great thing about science and debate. Don’t take arguments personally, it’s the facts that matter. Your biggest critic may be your best friend and they are most effective at showing you where you need to re-evaluate your views/position or improve your self-evaluation and make yourself a better scientist or individual.
I think you might be jumping to conclusions. The usage of disingenuous in debates also means dishonest (see my above comment). What I communicated was that disingenuous usage in a debate is without controversy.
No one reacts by flagging/reporting a study or paper for moderation because I said your position does not honestly represent facts or data. What happens instead is positions are restated in a way that better speaks to and directly addresses the facts or data to better prove their point, or they can’t directly address those facts and the debate more or less ends there quite efficiently.
Does that make sense?
A google search result shows:
“The Economics of the Financial Crisis: Lessons and New Threats
Marco Annunziata · 2011 · Business & Economics
Yet this line of argument is in many ways simplistic, misleading and disingenuous. Economics is an imperfect science, and some of its weaknesses have been shown in an unflatteringly harsh ...”
“On the Economics of Say and Keynes' Interpretation of Say's Law - Jstor
by PO Jonsson · 1995 · Cited by 37 · Related articles
portrayal of how Ricardian economics differed from his own General Theory was best disingenuous and at worst fraudulent. Moreover, because ...”
“A Synthesis of Law and Economics - SMU Scholar
by J Cirace · 2016 · Cited by 20 · Related articles
and transfers, economists often make disingenuous statements to the effect that a " trade-off" between distribution and efficiency exists. 38 Such ...”
“Institutional Economics: Veblen, Commons, and Mitchell ...
Joseph Dorfman · 1963 · Economics
The roots of his institutional economics were planted in the disorderly ... In a homespun and often disingenuous way, he strove with dogged ...”
“A/moral Economics: Classical Political Economy and Cultural ...
Claudia C. Klaver · 2003 · Business & Economics
Economics ... "laws of the inductive philosophy" to the "abstract questions of political economy" is disingenuous given the long history of debate ...”
I had no trouble finding these somewhat general but critical examples; the rhetoric is fairly common. With some better targeted google-fu I can probably find some great examples in heated scientific debates like Einstein vs Bohr and other great controversial debates.
What I meant (and should have made clearer originally) was: if you can find usages where the word 'disingenuous' is being used in a personal context without implying dishonesty or bad faith.
Of your five examples, only #4 is personal. I can't tell what the word is implying there.
No. “Disingenuous” is rhetoric used in the context of scientific debates and responses to other studies, without controversy.
Meaning the claims are not valid, not true, not representative, not correct, wrong, mischaracterizing, not genuine. It also means dishonest in science too.
FYI scientists don't use offense to a commonly used term to deflect an opposing view and facts/data. Scientists may partake in highly spirited and civil debates and may call out bias, hypocrisy, lies, and any number of things that plausibly explain opposing incongruent (claims incompatible with facts/data) positions including: idealism, politics, institutionalism, naivety, wishful thinking and so on.
This is the great thing about science and debate. Don’t take arguments personally, it’s the facts that matter. Your biggest critic may be your best friend and they are most effective at showing you where you need to re-evaluate your views/position or improve your self-evaluation and make yourself a better scientist or individual.