Rosa Lichtenstein
8th February 2006, 02:55
Comrades might like to think about this (taken from my site):
"The quandary facing dialecticians we might call the "Dialecticians' Dilemma" [DD]. The DD arises from the uncontroversial observation that if reality is fundamentally contradictory then any true theory should reflect this supposed state of affairs. However, and this is the problem, in order to do this such a theory must contain contradictions itself or it would not be an accurate reflection of nature. But, if the development of science is predicated either on the removal of contradictions from theories, or on the replacement of older theories with less contradictory ones, as DM-theorists contend, then science could not advance toward a 'truer' account of the world. This is because scientific theories would then reflect reality less accurately, having had all (or most) of their contradictions removed.
[DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
Conversely, if a true theory aims to reflect contradictions in nature more accurately (which it must do if the latter is contradictory) then scientists should not attempt to remove contradictions from -- or try to resolve them in or between -- theories. Clearly, on that score, science could not advance, since there would be no reason to replace a contradictory theory with a less contradictory one. Indeed, if DM were correct, scientific theories should become more contradictory -- not less -- as they approached more closely the truth about 'contradictory' reality. That, of course, would mean that scientific theory in general would become more defective with time!
Again, if science developed as a result of the removal of contradictions then a fully true theory should have had all (or most) of them removed. Science ought then to reflect (in the limit) the fact that reality contains no contradictions!
However, according to DM, scientific theories should rightly be replaced by ones that depict reality as fundamentally contradictory, this despite the fact that scientists will have removed every (or nearly every) contradiction in order to have reached that point, if DM were correct. On the other hand, if scientists failed to remove contradictions (or, if they refused to replace an older theory with a newer, less contradictory one), so that their theories reflected the contradictory nature of reality more accurately, they would then have no good reason to reject any theory no matter how inconsistent it was.
Whichever way this rusty old DM-banger is driven, the 'dialectical' view of scientific progress and contradictions hits a very material brick wall in the shape of the DD each time.
Dialecticians have thus so far failed to distinguish contradictions that are the mere [i]artefacts of a defective theory from those that supposedly reflect 'objective' features of the world. But, how might these be distinguished in DM-terms? How is it possible to tell if a contradiction is an accurate reflection of reality or if it is a consequence of a faulty theory, if all of reality (including scientific theory) is contradictory? Practice is of no help here since that takes place in the phenomenal world, which is riddled with contradictions, according to DM, and as such must be contradictory itself!
For example, DM-theorists generally argue that the wave-particle duality of light confirms the thesis that nature is fundamentally dialectical; in this case, light is supposed to be a UO of wave and particle. Precisely how they are a unity (i.e., how it could be true that matter is fundamentally particulate and fundamentally non-particulate all at once) is of course left eminently obscure -- and how this helps account for the material world is even less perspicuous. This alleged UO does nothing to explain change -- unless we are supposed to accept the idea that light being a particle changes it into a wave, and vice versa. But what is the point of that? What role does this particular 'contradiction' play in either DM or Physics? At best it seems to be merely ornamental.
[UO = Unity of Opposites.]
Now, if we put to one side the 'solution' to this puzzle offered by, say, Superstring Theory, there are still Physicists -- with, it seems, a more robust commitment to scientific realism than the average dialectician displays -- who believe that this 'paradox' can be resolved within a realist picture of nature. Whether they are correct or not need not detain us since DM-theorists (if consistent) ought to advise these rather rash realists not to bother trying to solve this riddle. This is because dialectics provides an a priori solution to it: since nature is fundamentally contradictory there is in fact no solution --, which paradoxical state of affairs should, of course, simply be "grasped".
Unfortunately, in that case, if physicists took this advice, Physics could not advance to a superior view of nature (if one exists) by eliminating this alleged contradiction. At best this a priori approach to knowledge would close available options down, forcing scientists to adopt a view of reality that might not be correct. Fortunately, there is little evidence so far that Physicists have taken heed of this aspect of dialectics, even if they have ever heard of it.
Now, only those who disagree with Lenin about the incomplete nature of science (or, alternatively, have a rather poor knowledge of the History of Physics) would risk concluding that contemporary science has a final and complete picture of reality, at least in this particular case. If so, Physics could only advance by eliminating this paradox (and hence removing one of the best examples DM-theorists have that supposedly illustrates the fundamentally contradictory nature of reality). Only those who want to foist their ideas on nature will object at this point.
On the other hand, if DM-theorists' advice to scientists is that they should in general try to replace contradictory theories (such as this one) with less logically-challenged ones, then they will have to abandon the idea that nature is fundamentally contradictory -- at least here. This conclusion is all the more pressing if certain scientists think they have already solved this problem (David Bohm being one, for example). But, this is just the DD once again: the DM-inspired belief in the contradictory nature of reality, coupled with the claim that science only advances by removing contradictions cannot, it seems, distinguish between contradictions that hold up the progress of science (and which are therefore artefacts of a defective or incomplete theory) from those that reveal the essentially 'contradictory' nature of reality.
Although some (like Plekhanov) have acknowledged the problem, it remains unresolved to this day. The various ways there might be for DM-theorists to escape from the hole they have dug themselves into are examined in my thesis and there shown to fail. [Dialecticians are therefore advised to stop digging.]"
Read more at:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm
"The quandary facing dialecticians we might call the "Dialecticians' Dilemma" [DD]. The DD arises from the uncontroversial observation that if reality is fundamentally contradictory then any true theory should reflect this supposed state of affairs. However, and this is the problem, in order to do this such a theory must contain contradictions itself or it would not be an accurate reflection of nature. But, if the development of science is predicated either on the removal of contradictions from theories, or on the replacement of older theories with less contradictory ones, as DM-theorists contend, then science could not advance toward a 'truer' account of the world. This is because scientific theories would then reflect reality less accurately, having had all (or most) of their contradictions removed.
[DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
Conversely, if a true theory aims to reflect contradictions in nature more accurately (which it must do if the latter is contradictory) then scientists should not attempt to remove contradictions from -- or try to resolve them in or between -- theories. Clearly, on that score, science could not advance, since there would be no reason to replace a contradictory theory with a less contradictory one. Indeed, if DM were correct, scientific theories should become more contradictory -- not less -- as they approached more closely the truth about 'contradictory' reality. That, of course, would mean that scientific theory in general would become more defective with time!
Again, if science developed as a result of the removal of contradictions then a fully true theory should have had all (or most) of them removed. Science ought then to reflect (in the limit) the fact that reality contains no contradictions!
However, according to DM, scientific theories should rightly be replaced by ones that depict reality as fundamentally contradictory, this despite the fact that scientists will have removed every (or nearly every) contradiction in order to have reached that point, if DM were correct. On the other hand, if scientists failed to remove contradictions (or, if they refused to replace an older theory with a newer, less contradictory one), so that their theories reflected the contradictory nature of reality more accurately, they would then have no good reason to reject any theory no matter how inconsistent it was.
Whichever way this rusty old DM-banger is driven, the 'dialectical' view of scientific progress and contradictions hits a very material brick wall in the shape of the DD each time.
Dialecticians have thus so far failed to distinguish contradictions that are the mere [i]artefacts of a defective theory from those that supposedly reflect 'objective' features of the world. But, how might these be distinguished in DM-terms? How is it possible to tell if a contradiction is an accurate reflection of reality or if it is a consequence of a faulty theory, if all of reality (including scientific theory) is contradictory? Practice is of no help here since that takes place in the phenomenal world, which is riddled with contradictions, according to DM, and as such must be contradictory itself!
For example, DM-theorists generally argue that the wave-particle duality of light confirms the thesis that nature is fundamentally dialectical; in this case, light is supposed to be a UO of wave and particle. Precisely how they are a unity (i.e., how it could be true that matter is fundamentally particulate and fundamentally non-particulate all at once) is of course left eminently obscure -- and how this helps account for the material world is even less perspicuous. This alleged UO does nothing to explain change -- unless we are supposed to accept the idea that light being a particle changes it into a wave, and vice versa. But what is the point of that? What role does this particular 'contradiction' play in either DM or Physics? At best it seems to be merely ornamental.
[UO = Unity of Opposites.]
Now, if we put to one side the 'solution' to this puzzle offered by, say, Superstring Theory, there are still Physicists -- with, it seems, a more robust commitment to scientific realism than the average dialectician displays -- who believe that this 'paradox' can be resolved within a realist picture of nature. Whether they are correct or not need not detain us since DM-theorists (if consistent) ought to advise these rather rash realists not to bother trying to solve this riddle. This is because dialectics provides an a priori solution to it: since nature is fundamentally contradictory there is in fact no solution --, which paradoxical state of affairs should, of course, simply be "grasped".
Unfortunately, in that case, if physicists took this advice, Physics could not advance to a superior view of nature (if one exists) by eliminating this alleged contradiction. At best this a priori approach to knowledge would close available options down, forcing scientists to adopt a view of reality that might not be correct. Fortunately, there is little evidence so far that Physicists have taken heed of this aspect of dialectics, even if they have ever heard of it.
Now, only those who disagree with Lenin about the incomplete nature of science (or, alternatively, have a rather poor knowledge of the History of Physics) would risk concluding that contemporary science has a final and complete picture of reality, at least in this particular case. If so, Physics could only advance by eliminating this paradox (and hence removing one of the best examples DM-theorists have that supposedly illustrates the fundamentally contradictory nature of reality). Only those who want to foist their ideas on nature will object at this point.
On the other hand, if DM-theorists' advice to scientists is that they should in general try to replace contradictory theories (such as this one) with less logically-challenged ones, then they will have to abandon the idea that nature is fundamentally contradictory -- at least here. This conclusion is all the more pressing if certain scientists think they have already solved this problem (David Bohm being one, for example). But, this is just the DD once again: the DM-inspired belief in the contradictory nature of reality, coupled with the claim that science only advances by removing contradictions cannot, it seems, distinguish between contradictions that hold up the progress of science (and which are therefore artefacts of a defective or incomplete theory) from those that reveal the essentially 'contradictory' nature of reality.
Although some (like Plekhanov) have acknowledged the problem, it remains unresolved to this day. The various ways there might be for DM-theorists to escape from the hole they have dug themselves into are examined in my thesis and there shown to fail. [Dialecticians are therefore advised to stop digging.]"
Read more at:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm