For general use one can define intellectual honesty as keeping one’s convictions in proportion to one’s valid evidence. Some define it by a negative definition, defining what it is not, using intellectual dishonesty to define it; Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. There are more specific definitions for academic and political uses. A broad definition is used by Jim Arvo at UCI (University of California Irvine); Honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas.
Honesty becomes complex when we have unexamined beliefs, such as a religion or political outlook we grew up with. One often hears statements like ‘everyone knows…’ or ‘it’s obvious that…’ in relation to beliefs that are so foundational to our thinking we may not know when we acquired them. While others can see the fallacy in or lack of logic in our thinking, we often can’t.
The way we research, debate, think and discuss those challenges to beliefs has been considered and thought on for centuries. In the evolution of thinking some styles of debate have been recognized as being unfair, irrational, illogical and or intellectually dishonest. Some of the characteristics are so common they have names. (Reference: Signs of Intellectual Honesty – Intellectual Honesty & Intellectually-Dishonest Debate Tactics)
Ad hominem attacks or personal attacks are an effort to discredit the speaker rather than the idea. Unfortunately personal attacks are sometimes justified, so making a rule is complex. The descriptive use of a name that is relevant and objectively defined is usually acceptable. One that is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about then one is usually being intellectually dishonest. The issue of relevance touches on why the name was used. If solely to discredit the speaker rather than the idea then it likely may be dishonest.
In popular vogue today is the idea that an ad hominem attack is typical of a last ditch tactic. When one runs out of ideas and substantive arguments they often resort to ad hominem attacks. For many it signals the end of honest discussion and de facto concession of the topic.
The illogical part of an ad hominem attack is in the form of;
Person ‘A’ says ‘something’.
Person ‘B’ says person ‘A’ is bad therefore ‘something’ can’t be true.
Is calling someone a Cyan lover or hater a fair tactic? Is it intellectually honest?
If discussing birth control, is calling someone Catholic a fair tactic? Is it intellectually honest?
If you can answer those questions, how would you put your decision process in a rule or guide line?