Why dialectics?

[ComradeRed]

I have been reading up on a form of logic called "constructivist logic". Essentially, it can be reduced to this: there is no such thing as something being strictly true or false, it is justified, unjustified, or undetermined.

Now the reason why I bring this up is because marxists.org (http://marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm) defines dialectics as "dialectical materialism...to be clear there is no one answer to a question -- theory is based on a particular set of conditions that are always finite, and thus, any theory is necessarily limited."

Now, given that as a definition of dialectical materialism, why bother with it? There is a superior form of logic all ready. Why not ditch dialectics and go for the superior form of reason?

[Monty Cantsin]

The thing is that the Materialist dialectic isnt a closed system it's spose to evolve.

[ComradeRed]

Oh?

The problem that I have is that there is no rhythm or rhyme to its evolution. Evolution is a difficult thing to put as an algorithm while still retaining its use.

We can say, for example, "In the future we shall know more." This is, without a doubt, evolutionary...but what shall we know exactly? No one really knows, so what's the point in stating it?

If we cannot determine what we will know, we might as well not utter the phrase.

On the other hand, if you mean "evolve" as in heuristically, why can't logic do that? Varify premises with reality, and move on to logically justified propositions. Is this "inferior"? How?

[Iepilei]

The truth always lies somewhere in between the statements you read. Never take anything verbatim and never accept anything blindly. It saddens me to see so many socialists fall to the wayside because of their inability to make use of dialectical reasoning.

:ph34r:

[ComradeRed]

It saddens me to see so many socialists fall to the wayside because of their inability to make use of dialectical reasoning. Enlighten me. In "layman's" terms, use dialectics to prove something.

[Guest1]

For examples of dialectics vs. formal logic, look at the history of science.

One of the best examples is english gradualism in evolutionary theory. Darwin truly believed that evolution was a gradual process. Looking at the fossil records, which had massive gaps in them, he stated that the records were imperfect. Rather than believing the theory could be wrong, he decided that the evidence did not reflect the theory and therefore, reality.

It is now posited that the fossil records are not imperfect, it was the theory that was. The theory of interrupted equilibrea, which steven jay gould developed, showed that evolution was not gradual at all. Much like the development of society, it built up and built up until it reached a critical point where massive, revolutionary changes would occur. Explosions of life and extinctions were common place.

Formal logic is fine when it comes to simple, linear ideas. But when describing complex, changing systems, it fails. Dialectics is the philosophy of change.

[ComradeRed]

But how will things change? It seems fine and dandy to say "Well, if there are enough quantitative changes there will be a qualitative one." But that doesn't seem to predict too much! There simply is no "template" to change.

[Iepilei]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:18 PM
But how will things change? It seems fine and dandy to say "Well, if there are enough quantitative changes there will be a qualitative one." But that doesn't seem to predict too much! There simply is no "template" to change.
That's the point, there is no road-map for change in the world, the galaxy, or the universe. The point is change is INEVITABLE, as the thesis/antithesis will create their own synthesis. Using Marx's interpretation of the revolution based on the context of then versus the context of now is ineffective, as the market-system has changed drastically since that point.

Life is contextual. You can't say what will happen in the future because you don't know the contradictions that will arise. You must only anticipate and search for them as they occur.

:ph34r:

[ComradeRed]

Then the whole dialectical concept is useless. What use is there in saying "Somewhere at sometime something will change somehow, but I can't tell you anything other than that"?

[Iepilei]

Then isn't all philosophy pointless? The purpose of humanity is our ability to conceive the environment around us. Dialects is matter-of-fact because it points out that no reasonable arguement can be made for any one particular ideology; development is found through conflict. You can sit around and say that the world is a shade of black and white if you wish, however, should you ever anticipate a revolution to socialism you must realise it's not going to be.

A revolution isn't fought in the streets. It's fought EVERYWHERE. If you're wanting someone to make you a detailed to do list, you're of no use to us.

:ph34r:

[ComradeRed]

Then isn't all philosophy pointless? The purpose of humanity is our ability to conceive the environment around us. Yeah, you could put it that way, philosophy is useless. Now we can look at things scientifically and empirically, or we can look at it dogmatically and dialectically.

Science is the exercise of "conceiving the environment around us"...that's what makes it scientific!


Dialects is matter-of-fact because it points out that no reasonable arguement can be made for any one particular ideology; development is found through conflict. Look, no matter how beautifully you arrange your words, dialectics still can't prove anything. Worse, it can't even prove things that mathematical logic can!

What use is it? You say it is evolutionary, but all it says is "something somewhere will change sometime". That's useless to anyone and everyone!

What will change? How will it change? When will it change?

Dialectics can't answer this. Physics can.

[Iepilei]

Physics is incapable of understanding and rationalising the inherant irrationality of humanity. Psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, etc, are all sciences dedicated to the understanding of why we are who we are. There is no mathematical formula that can explain the plight of humanity, nor is there any logical way to predict how a particular individual will react. Too many variables come in to play when dealing with situations like that.

The study of Marxism is one which is built on dialectical thought as a means for scientific reasoning of the irrational. Yes, we are irrational even if we try to put up some facade that we're cool, calm, and collected. Humanity will always be a philosophical entity and as such, there will always be people of faith and there will always be emotion. This can never be negated.

:ph34r:

[Guest1]

Well, iepili is mystifying dialectics, and you are searching for something that isn't there.

You want dialectics to be magical. It isn't. All it is is an addition to formal logic, which provides a more accurate philosophy to science in complex changing systems. It's funny that you refer to dialectics as dogmatic, when formal logic, the bourgeois scientific establishment's philosophy for everything, leads to big mistakes when stretched beyond its limits.

Dialectics isn't used to predict anything, because predictions are stupid. Take weather patterns. You can reasonably extrapolate current trends towards the next few days, beyond that, it's anyone's guess.

Dialectics doesn't replace science, it's a philosophy of science for more complex systems. Formal logic goes out the window in quantum mechanics, in chaos theory, in evolution, in the history of the universe, all of these sciences have been hurt by a formal logic approach to them. 1+1+1+1+1+1=6 and so on may work fine in abstract mathematics, but in complex systems that last 1 could lead to an explosion or implosion of the entire system, leading to radically different results. Dialectics is merely the understanding that that is how change works, not gradually, but in interrupted equilibrea.

[ComradeRed]

Formal logic goes out the window in quantum mechanics, in chaos theory, in evolution, in the history of the universe, all of these sciences have been hurt by a formal logic approach to them. Actually, Constructivist logic can explain all of these "enigmas" perfectly. Further, only constructivist logic can be used to formulate "quantum gravity" (if it can indeed be done).

And what about dialectics? Can it do it?


Dialectics is merely the understanding that that is how change works, not gradually, but in interrupted equilibrea. Here I must disagree. The questions how things change is best explained with physics...how did it explode? Elementary, the density of energy was simply too great for the strength of the device in question to handle.

We can go further, we can state that the exact density of energy for a given apparatus to handle is x electron volts. Dialectics can only, if at all, say "too much will break it!"

That isn't precise. That is dogma.

[Guest1]

You're yet again attempting to replace science with philosophy. Dialectics is nothing more than a philosophy, physics explains what it explains, but if you approach it formalisticly, your results will be different. dialectics is just an approach to how to get the most complete picture of complex systems, not just isolating factors, but taking them all together and understanding the phenomena in motion. In its living form, rather than its cold, stagnant, abstracted state. That is all. Both formal logic and dialectics use whatever science you apply them to, physics, biology, etc... But they are a different approach to it.

Dialectics is just an approach to understanding the world that takes contradictions, movement, and change as essential to the whole, rather than statistical errors.

Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrea is a dialectical one, and was quite consciously so. He mentions Marx and particularly Engels as having understood more fully how science should view its researches. Gradualism in evolutionary biology and the ideas that the universe has a beginning and an end (bang/crunch) are examples of what happens when formalism continues beyond its applications/expiration date. What we end with is abstraction and mathematical models being the main method of discovery, propped up by shoddy observation, if at all. Rather than how it should be, which is abstractions and mathematical formulas derived from observation and experimentation.

[ComradeRed]

You're yet again attempting to replace science with philosophy. Dialectics is nothing more than a philosophy, physics explains what it explains, but if you approach it formalisticly, your results will be different. My point is that dialectics tries to vaguely deal with a given system. It doesn't answer the important questions...like how will the system change?

Physics, at this moment, is trying to synthesize together a "theory of everything"...if dialectics were as fantastic as you make them out to be, why hasn't any dialectician come up with one?

In addition, what relevance has the error of the observer have to formal logic in science? It has the same relevance applied to dialectics...it is just as fucked up as formal logic.


Gradualism in evolutionary biology and the ideas that the universe has a beginning and an end (bang/crunch) are examples of what happens when formalism continues beyond its applications/expiration date. What we end with is abstraction and mathematical models being the main method of discovery, propped up by shoddy observation, if at all. Rather than how it should be, which is abstractions and mathematical formulas derived from observation and experimentation. What is interesting is that these "shoddy equations" are the logical conclusion of empirically verified formulae and theory (viz. quantum theory and relativity).

Further, the details derived from these "shoddy equations" are more precise than anything dialectics has to offer...even if the verification of the math is "sketchy".

We can deduce that the size of a black hole is directly proportional to the amount of entropy of the black hole. Dialectics can only tell us that the size will change. No shit Sherlock!

Further dialectics can't prove important theories like Einstein's theory of gravity, much less anything beyond it!

What's more is that you are attacking formal logic for this, but formal logic has little (if any) connection to it. Formal logic isn't being "stretched to the limits" because formal logic isn't being used! What is being used is cosmological logic, or "constructivist" logic. Yet you ignore this.

[Iepilei]

Dialectics isn't supposed to replace any mode of thought, rather act as a paradigm in which you filter information through. You realise you can have several, right?

:ph34r:

[Guest1]

You have little understanding of the difference between scientific methodology and the philosophy that decides it.

Whether you admit it or not, the methods used in scienceare the result of a philosophy of science. An approach that determines methodology. A conscious philosophy that embraces change and contradictions as essential to all process bears a method and approach that does not attempt to ignore them.

Formal logic is being used. Hence the big bang bullshit and the copenhagen school.

Philosophy does not replace science. Philosophy determines our approach to it. No matter how arrogantly you demand I prove that dialectics replaces science, that won't change.

You're debating with yourself.

When you wanna discuss with me, let me know.

[ComradeRed]

Whether you admit it or not, the methods used in scienceare the result of a philosophy of science. An approach that determines methodology. A conscious philosophy that embraces change and contradictions as essential to all process bears a method and approach that does not attempt to ignore them. The methodology of a science can be used to prove something, provided it is a good method. Dialectics, as a method of science (or a general method to anything), should be able to prove something.

Unless dialectics isn't a method but a philosophy...which would mean that a great deal of it is irrelevant (the "objectification of immaterial blah blah blah" bullshit, of course). In such a case, it cannot prove a thing.

Or, as a third possibility, we cannot determine what dialectics are...but the solution to this would be to act as though dialectics are undetermined to be useful.

You really haven't presented a use for dialectics but argued that it is a basis of science...although the proof presented for this is very shaky at best. It hasn't been proven, just as the usefulness of dialectics hasn't been proven.


Formal logic is being used. Hence the big bang bullshit and the copenhagen school. The Copenhagen school I can agree with...but people saw through it to the nonsense it was (e.g. Einstein).

The "Big Bang bullshit" however is logical and, if you persist, "dialectical". The universe goes through a cycle of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches".

If dialectics are a method...why hasn't it contributed to any of this, or anything important?



Philosophy does not replace science. Philosophy determines our approach to it. Yes, I understand that perfectly. Newton "synthesized" deduction and induction into a method, then proved useful things with his method!

How we can judge a method is by how well it can work in predicting things and explaining things (or, more simply, in formulation and explanation of good theories).

We can test a philosophy by its theories...dialectics, however, cannot formulate a simple theory.

If you look at Das Kapital, the outline of chapters were organized dialectically...but the actually argument and formulation of the theory was done with normal logic.

Normal logic is able to formulate and explain theories...dialectics cannot.

[TheReadMenace]

Dialectics is simply making since of the irrational, as someone already said.

A good example is Socrates: Socrates asks a man to provide a definition of piety. The man replies that the pious is that which is loved by the gods. But, Socrates points out, the gods quarrel and their quarrels, like human quarrels, concern objects of love or hatred. The man agrees. Socrates reasons that some things are loved by some gods and hated by others. Again, the man agrees. Socrates concludes that if the man's definition of piety is true, then something can be both pious and impious at the same time - which, the man admits, is absurd.

So with dialectic, you point out the contradictions inherent within a single thing and try to reconcile those things. That involves admitted that there is more than one answer, more than one dimension, to every problem. With concepts like 'right' and 'wrong,' one exists on the same plane as the other, and live in both contradiction and harmony. How is that possible? Just think of Full Metal Jacket - the commander asks a kid why he has both a peace sign and 'born to kill' on his helmet. He explains that it's part of the duality of human nature. We love, we hate - the two contradict each other, but exist on the same plane.

That's why dialectics is important. There are so many different possibilities existing within each system, and that's what you try to reason out. There is no black and white answer; it isn't right and wrong, because right has some wrong qualities, and wrong has some right qualities.

So explain it? There is no set definition, and all things are then possible.

Andrew

[Bannockburn]

I think we need to go back to Hegel for a moment here. The big difference you guys are mistaking is that logic is a-priori, whereas dialectics is not. That is why you can't reduce everything down to logic simply because the empirical can't always be reduced to logic.



The problem that I have is that there is no rhythm or rhyme to its evolution.

Actually there is a rhythm to it. Lets go to Hegel, and then we will move on to Marx. To begin with, Hegel saw dialectics in the form of an thesis of a given idea. As s this idea evolves and moves to adapt and shape the material world, a contradiction will arise. That's Hegel's term for the anti-thesis. They will further proceed and it will spawn something completely new and contrary to both the thesis, and anti-thesis of the synthesis. It will eventually flow to what Hegel calls the absolute. This can be seen easiest with the process of philosophy

Socrates = Thesis
Plato = Anti-thesis
Aristotle = synthesis.

Socrates brought philosophy back down to earth. Its opposite, or “contradiction” is Platonic metaphysics. Its synthesis is Aristotle who is not like Plato or Socrates, but something new, but could not come until Socrates and Plato can be established.

Another trial

Thesis = The Rationalist (Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz).
Anti-Thesis = The Empiricist (Locke Berkley and Hume)
Synthesis = Kant

Likewise

Capitalism
Communism
Socialism.

Sp there is a method, and it is a system. However, its not a-priori. Also:


use dialectics to prove something

Dialectics is historical. You can't know it until and after the fact. Or until say the synthesis has become.


philosophy is useless

Then you have no idea what philosophy is about. Sorry. We can best show its usefulness here:


how did it explode? Elementary, the density of energy was simply too great for the strength of the device in question to handle.

Physics, must presuppose, metaphysical concepts like energy, and substance. However, it can rationally, and logically shown that substance and energy are


Illusionary, and can be questioned. Since that is the case, where does this leave physics?

[Axel1917]

I don't have time to post at length here, but I would recommend that those wishing to learn about dialectics read and digest Reason in Revolt: Dialectical Philosophy and Modern Science. Free online version at http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.asp

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:17 PM
Unless dialectics isn't a method but a philosophy...which would mean that a great deal of it is irrelevant (the "objectification of immaterial blah blah blah" bullshit, of course). In such a case, it cannot prove a thing.
Yes, it is a philosophy, and that is the point. You are attempting to argue it as if it were a science. It doesn't have to prove anything, that's the scientific method's job. A philosophy however, determines what scientific method you use and how relevant your research is. A metaphysical, or idealist philosophy, will result in very shaky science.

Dialectics is a materialist philosophy for science. It is a philosophy of change.

Now that we&#39;ve established that, will you stop pretending it is meant to replace physics? <_<

As for the big bang, it is a perfect example of idealist philosophy destroying science. It starts with a formula, and then attempts to force reality to support it. Having found that reality does not reflect this equation, it was decided that it is not the equation that is incorrect, but rather our perception of reality. With very flimsy evidence, most of it derived from the assumption that the equation was correct, it was said that there must be an unseeable, unmeasurable matter/energy in the universe. This is, of course, rediculous. If it is unseeable and unmeasurable, it is nothing but faith that tells us it exists. Wouldn&#39;t it be easier to assume that the equation was wrong, and the big bang is not what happened?

Until the idea of the big bang is solidly proven, we should assume it is wrong, rather than invent mass amounts of matter that cannot be proven to exist.


I don&#39;t have time to post at length here, but I would recommend that those wishing to learn about dialectics read and digest Reason in Revolt: Dialectical Philosophy and Modern Science.
Absolutely, that&#39;s the best book to address dialectics, as well as the history of science in a while.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+--> (Che y Marijuana)
Yes, it is a philosophy, and that is the point. You are attempting to argue it as if it were a science. It doesn&#39;t have to prove anything, that&#39;s the scientific method&#39;s job. A philosophy however, determines what scientific method you use and how relevant your research is. A metaphysical, or idealist philosophy, will result in very shaky science.[/b] I disagree...although we can talk about how to approach philosophy until the cows come home, the fact of the matter is that no one really knows how they will get the correct answer.

In theory, the approach varies with whichever science is in question. Not only does this essentially complicate matters, but it does so to such a degree that the philosophy of science is meaningless.



Now that we&#39;ve established that, will you stop pretending it is meant to replace physics? I&#39;m insisting quite the opposite...for Marxism at least. Why not ground Marxism in science?



As for the big bang, it is a perfect example of idealist philosophy destroying science. It starts with a formula, and then attempts to force reality to support it. Having found that reality does not reflect this equation, it was decided that it is not the equation that is incorrect, but rather our perception of reality. With very flimsy evidence, most of it derived from the assumption that the equation was correct, it was said that there must be an unseeable, unmeasurable matter/energy in the universe. This is, of course, rediculous. If it is unseeable and unmeasurable, it is nothing but faith that tells us it exists. Wouldn&#39;t it be easier to assume that the equation was wrong, and the big bang is not what happened? What is interesting about the big bang is that it is the result of an empirically verified theory of gravity (Einstein&#39;s famous field equation).

It has been proven mathematically by Dr. Penrose and Dr. Hawking that if general relativity is true, there must have been a singularity...a definite beginning and a possible ending.

Does this mean that there is an "unmeasurable" amount of energy or matter in the universe? Actually no, if you take Einstein&#39;s cosmological constant (one divided by the radius of the universe squared), one can derive the mass of the universe as well as its size.

If you notionally set the mass divided by the volume to be less than the density which forms a black hole, you can get a definite amount of matter/energy n the universe.

Although this may seem shaky in its foundations, it flows logically from the theory of general relativity. But supposing there was something "flawed" in the progression, it still wouldn&#39;t be easier to completely dump the theory. Rather using it heuristically would be many times better, since that&#39;s what scientists do.


Bannockburn
The big difference you guys are mistaking is that logic is a-priori, whereas dialectics is not. Not necessarily, logic can be empirical. As A. J. Ayres pointed out, logic can not be decoupled from empiricism.

Hilary Putnam is also a big proponent of the theory as well, you may want to see his thesis.



Actually there is a rhythm to it. Lets go to Hegel, and then we will move on to Marx. To begin with, Hegel saw dialectics in the form of an thesis of a given idea. As s this idea evolves and moves to adapt and shape the material world, a contradiction will arise. That&#39;s Hegel&#39;s term for the anti-thesis. They will further proceed and it will spawn something completely new and contrary to both the thesis, and anti-thesis of the synthesis. It will eventually flow to what Hegel calls the absolute. I&#39;ve read Hegel, and no where in his writings does he endorse the "thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad".

But Dialectics attempt to synthesize....even according to your steps. Logic and science attempts to analyze, the exact opposite of synthesis. This is not reconcileable for a philosophy of science.