Dialectics

[RA89]

Do you guys have examples of dialectics being used for analysis/reasoning and producing different results from other conventional methods?

[Deep Sea]

Dialectics isn't so much a different type of reasoning as it is an approach to something.

Consider two opposing people arguing the case for two diametrically opposed ideas. Suppose one idea is self-consistent and the other is not. The person arguing the consistent position could use the contradictions in the other person's arguments to lead them to conclusions they obviously wouldn't accept (or even the opposite position the other person is arguing).

Say both positions are not self-consistent, yet neither person wants to give up very easily. Both may attempt to use the contradictions in the other's arguments to led them to opposite conclusions. Maybe at some point in the argument, both sides switch positions utilizing the contradictions in a semi-mocking fashion to persuade the other that their position is false. As they refine their mock-arguments against the other, they would necessarily come to a synthesis of position.

To think dialectically, to me, means to consider intellectual issues in this sort of fashion, even if it is only an internal dialogue.

[RA89]

Dialectics isn't so much a different type of reasoning as it is an approach to something.

Consider two opposing people arguing the case for two diametrically opposed ideas. Suppose one idea is self-consistent and the other is not. The person arguing the consistent position could use the contradictions in the other person's arguments to lead them to conclusions they obviously wouldn't accept (or even the opposite position the other person is arguing).

Say both positions are not self-consistent, yet neither person wants to give up very easily. Both may attempt to use the contradictions in the other's arguments to led them to opposite conclusions. Maybe at some point in the argument, both sides switch positions utilizing the contradictions in a semi-mocking fashion to persuade the other that their position is false. As they refine their mock-arguments against the other, they would necessarily come to a synthesis of position.

To think dialectically, to me, means to consider intellectual issues in this sort of fashion, even if it is only an internal dialogue.

Thanks for the response.
Could you please use this in an example with a hypothetical argument please?

Are you saying that dialectics is basically making sure people don't base their arguments on false premises and to approach things from different angles/play devil's advocate with yourself?

The person arguing the consistent position could use the contradictions in the other person's arguments to lead them to conclusions they obviously wouldn't accept (or even the opposite position the other person is arguing).

I don't quite understand this part. Do you mean that the person with the argument that is not self consistent "wouldn't accept" the conclusion of the person pointing out the contradictions because of stubbornness/being irrational or because simply pointing out the contradictions in their argument is not sufficient for them to accept the conclusion?

Or do you mean the person (A) arguing with the person with the conclusion that is NOT self-consistent (B), can himself/herself use the contradictions in the B's argument to lead them to conclusions they (A) themselves wouldn't accept?

[RedMaterialist]

Do you guys have examples of dialectics being used for analysis/reasoning and producing different results from other conventional methods?

Yes, here's one, I think.

Conventional: You are born either a male or a female, you are one or the other, you can't be both or neither, just one or the other. God or biology made you that way.

Dialectical: Everything exists on a continuum, there is no absolute one or the other, everything develops from something else and this development depends on changes in quantities of matter. A person's physical sexual development depends on the genetic changes in fetal DNA, most of the time it results in what appears to be one sex or the other. But, if there are sufficient quantitative changes in the DNA development then a person's fetal sexuality can become ambiguous, or entirely different, or possibly even change during the fetal development.

You can become male or female, or both, or neither, or your physical sexuality may be altogether different from your gender or your sexual preference, which is probably determined by brain chemistry.

[Deep Sea]

Thanks for the response.

No problem!

Could you please use this in an example with a hypothetical argument please?

To continue RedMaterialist's example a bit:

Person 1: Radical feminist (TERF). Says transwomen have the mentality of rapists, are socialized male, have autogynephilia, etc.

Person 2: Trans-advocate. Says transwomen are women, incredibly discriminated against, brainsex theory, etc.

These two people arguing their positions may attempt to utilize perceived contradictions in the others positions to persuade the other. The Radfem may accuse the trans-advocate of gender essentialism, crude biologism (in the case of brainsex theory), etc. The trans-advocate may accuse the Radfem of similar charges, claim they have cis-privilege, etc.

Are you saying that dialectics is basically making sure people don't base their arguments on false premises and to approach things from different angles/play devil's advocate with yourself

Not exactly, though it may help you to think of it like that. The old formula of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis, while crude, is a basic description of dialectical thought.

I don't quite understand this part. Do you mean that the person with the argument that is not self consistent "wouldn't accept" the conclusion of the person pointing out the contradictions because of stubbornness/being irrational or because simply pointing out the contradictions in their argument is not sufficient for them to accept the conclusion?

Being stubborn or irrational might be the basis for it not being "sufficient for them to accept the conclusion." This certainly appears to be the case with a lot of identity issues and religion.

It could be the case that whatever contradiction is being alleged is minor, and can be accounted for without much mental effort (as perceived by the person confronted with the contradiction). A major contradiction in someone's argument would (hypothetically) persuade them to abandon the belief. If a proposition X can be shown to lead inevitably to proposition Y, and the person can not possibly accept proposition Y, they must abandon proposition X, and they lose the argument.

Or do you mean the person (A) arguing with the person with the conclusion that is NOT self-consistent (B), can himself/herself use the contradictions in the B's argument to lead them to conclusions they (A) themselves wouldn't accept

No. Person (A) would use the contradiction to lead person (B) to a conclusion that person (B) couldn't accept, thus winning the argument for person (A).

The 'dialectical' aspect comes into play when both people are arguing positions that are not fully self-consistent, and both people are attempting to utilize the contradictions in the other's position to persuade them.

"Dialectical thought" would be this taking place as an internal dialogue in the mind of a single person.

[Thirsty Crow]

Not exactly, though it may help you to think of it like that. The old formula of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis, while crude, is a basic description of dialectical thought.

It's Fichte's schema, one that is different from both Hegel's dialectics and the follow up, so called materialist dialectics. Anyway, dialectical contradiction as it's used by Hegel and dialectical materialists is hardly reduced to forms of reasoning and dialogue/argument situations. Rather, it's an all pervasive nature of "reality" (scare quotes since Hegel first doesn't recognize any such thing as our everyday world as it is, and diamat with him as well fails to do so). To demonstrate this just ask one of the resident diamat mystics whether an occurrence as banal and common as motion of solid bodies is contradictory.

Either way it remains entirely unclear how any of this is useful, and even how can it be said that it makes one iota of sense.

For instance, the formula above doesn't make any sense in that it is entirely unclear what would the proposed "synthesis" consist of. If it's that we're speaking of propositions within arguments.
Thesis: Earth revolves around the Sun
Antithesis: Earth does not revolve around the sun (or - Sun revolves around Earth)

Our synthesis here would be obviously to examine which one of these holds. Is that what is actually meant by this?

Yes, here's one, I think.

Conventional: You are born either a male or a female, you are one or the other, you can't be both or neither, just one or the other. God or biology made you that way.

Dialectical: Everything exists on a continuum, there is no absolute one or the other, everything develops from something else and this development depends on changes in quantities of matter. A person's physical sexual development depends on the genetic changes in fetal DNA, most of the time it results in what appears to be one sex or the other. But, if there are sufficient quantitative changes in the DNA development then a person's fetal sexuality can become ambiguous, or entirely different, or possibly even change during the fetal development.

Cute straw man right here.

The alleged conventional reasoning isn't conventional at all but plain out wrong as it obviously rests on denial of fact - the existence of intersex people. I'd also like to see some body of evidence connected to "sufficient quantitative changes in the DNA development" which is obviously pulled out of that holy writ that are the three great laws.

[Deep Sea]

Anyway, dialectical contradiction as it's used by Hegel and dialectical materialists is hardly reduced to forms of reasoning and dialogue/argument situations. Rather, it's an all pervasive nature of "reality" (scare quotes since Hegel first doesn't recognize any such thing as our everyday world as it is, and diamat with him as well fails to do so).

Hegel, in my view, is attempting to use dialectical reasoning to persuade the reader of his views, many of which I agree are nonsense.

For instance, the formula above doesn't make any sense in that it is entirely unclear what would the proposed "synthesis" consist of. If it's that we're speaking of propositions within arguments.
Thesis: Earth revolves around the Sun
Antithesis: Earth does not revolve around the sun (or - Sun revolves around Earth)

Our synthesis here would be obviously to examine which one of these holds. Is that what is actually meant by this?

While every thesis has an anti-thesis, it is not the case that there is always a synthesis. But there is always a potential synthesis. Allow me to explain.

Consider seriously for a moment that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun. Consider you absolutely know this to be the case (somehow). You're going to have an awfully hard time proving your case! And say, as you try to enlighten the entire world community that you are right and they are wrong, you will have to produce a refutation of all the arguments and evidence marshaled against you. As you develop this "Encyclopedia of Refutations of Heliocentric Lies" or whatever, you will have created a set of ideas that is a replacement (a "synthesis" if you will) of all the false ideas people had related to believing the Earth revolves around the Sun.

[Thirsty Crow]

While every thesis has an anti-thesis, it is not the case that there is always a synthesis. But there is always a potential synthesis. Allow me to explain.

I don't see how what you write in the next paragraph explains this potential synthesis and that there is always one.

Consider seriously for a moment that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun. Consider you absolutely know this to be the case (somehow). You're going to have an awfully hard time proving your case! And say, as you try to enlighten the entire world community that you are right and they are wrong, you will have to produce a refutation of all the arguments and evidence marshaled against you. As you develop this "Encyclopedia of Refutations of Heliocentric Lies" or whatever, you will have created a set of ideas that is a replacement (a "synthesis" if you will) of all the false ideas people had related to believing the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Well, if I knew this was the case, this necessarily implies I've come to this conclusion through the same set of methods and procedures of providing evidence as the people who came up with the heliocentric model. Just that they were wrong. So I would have an awfully hard time providing evidence most likely but if it is to be assumed I know this to be the case, then it also holds that I've got evidence.

The exposition of the argument and the new evidence may indeed come about through refutation. But to call this replacement a "synthesis" does not make any sense whatsoever. This is not what synthesis is; there is no combination of relevant factors of opposed viewpoints, it's just that one is correct while the other is not and consequently the correct one replaces the old incorrect one in the scientific community first and then also in wider social circles.

Generally this old formula is taken as kinda of indicating that the two somehow get combined in order to produce a higher order truth or something to that effect. Generally the term refers to combining disparate elements into an integrated whole.

Anyway, I don't think it makes sense to talk of a synthesis here as it's fairly obvious that we're dealing with a normal procedure of replacing one erroneous set of ideas with one that is correct, especially since the term in dialectical meanderings took on some rather different philosophical meanings than the one that you're getting at here.

[Deep Sea]

Well, if I knew this was the case, this necessarily implies I've come to this conclusion through the same set of methods and procedures of providing evidence as the people who came up with the heliocentric model. Just that they were wrong.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you live in a supernatural universe, and God has revealed to you that demons are using tricks to make people think the Earth revolves around the Sun, when it actually doesn't.

The exposition of the argument and the new evidence may indeed come about through refutation. But to call this replacement a "synthesis" does not make any sense whatsoever

It might be more like what one would think of as a 'synthesis' if it involved larger questions like the nature of reality itself. Your absolute knowledge of the fact that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun may bring up all kinds of other issues that are more philosophically pertinent. As you argue your case to the skeptics, more and more would have to change about the way they think about the universe than simply that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun. Is all the evidence that it does a lie? How could so many people be mistaken? How could our observations be so wrong? For how could it possibly be the case that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun, except a massive conspiracy to propagate a lie?

To bring in another idea, imagine a "synthesis" like a room with two doors. One door is a "thesis" and another an "anti-thesis." One door leads to one reality, and the other leads to a completely different reality. The room is a "synthesis" in that it connects two ideas together. I would say, for any sufficiently complex ideas that are diametrically opposed to another, where there is no way to easy way to decide the truth of one or the other, then the "thesis" represents one entire set of ideas, arguments, evidence that supports it, and the "anti-thesis" another entirely different set of ideas, arguments and evidence supporting the "anti-thesis." "Synthesis" is the sorting out of what is true between the two opposing sets, with the possibility of one set being completely true and the other completely false.

[Thirsty Crow]

Not necessarily. Perhaps you live in a supernatural universe, and God has revealed to you that demons are using tricks to make people think the Earth revolves around the Sun, when it actually doesn't.

Umm, okay.
I don't see how these inane and fanciful what ifs can be productive. Anyway, I'm talking about knowledge, not some kind of a belief like this. I don't intend to engage in such word play concerning supernatural universes and whatnot.

It might be more like what one would think of as a 'synthesis' if it involved larger questions like the nature of reality itself.

Okay, just for the sake of argument, what is this larger question of the "nature" of reality and how is it important here?

Your absolute knowledge of the fact that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun may bring up all kinds of other issues that are more philosophically pertinent.As you argue your case to the skeptics, more and more would have to change about the way they think about the universe than simply that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun.

Why would more and more people need to change the way they think about the universe? What relations do the sun and Earth have with, I don't know, distant nebulas?
Even if you additionally started to play with this idea of a supernatural universe and what have you this would not make sense. Still you'd end up with a replacement, and not a combination of the two opposed viewpoints.

Is all the evidence that it does a lie? How could so many people be mistaken? How could our observations be so wrong? For how could it possibly be the case that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun, except a massive conspiracy to propagate a lie?

I already laid out my assumptions - knowledge presupposes that I got evidence, which is out there for review, debate and so on. If it's the mystical absolute knowledge (supernatural universe), still there's no synthesis going on as obviously I won't accept to combine significant elements of the contrary paradigm. Again, it's replacement, and I can't really figure out why would anyone need centuries old formulas devised for idealist philosophical systems to deal with such down to earth stuff. What all of this has to do with any synthesizing, and not merely some nasty questions throwing up more questions about observational devices and so on and so on, I don't know.

Anyway. I don't think we're going places since it's obvious that this synthesis of yours you cannot explain in a simple and coherent way, without resorting to pictures (a room with two doors, really?) and such roundabout reasoning concerning supernatural universes and potential larger changes in people's valid and correct thinking about the world which really do not show anything.

"Synthesis" is the sorting out of what is true between the two opposing sets, with the possibility of one set being completely true and the other completely false.

Okay, but that's a "synthesis" that has very little to do with any kind of dialectical philosophy. In fact, it's an entirely idiosyncratic hijacking of the term which works in very different ways in that context (and that context is relevant since this is a thread on dialectics). Furthermore, it's also clear that we use this word to refer to combining disparate elements into a new whole (chemical synthesis, and collo), of bringing them together which is not really the case here in such examinations where it just might turn out that one set is correct, or much more correct than the other one.

[Deep Sea]

I don't see how these inane and fanciful what ifs can be productive.

Well, I agree they are not. But you chose the example.

Okay, just for the sake of argument, what is this larger question of the "nature" of reality and how is it important here?

We would have to develop the scenario where you know the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun to figure that out.

Why would more and more people need to change the way they think about the universe?

I think you read me wrong here. The "more and more" refers to beliefs about reality, not more and more people.

What relations do the sun and Earth have with, I don't know, distant nebulas?

Because we are seemingly in a position where we are wrong about a much more basic (and observable!) fact, so why trust anything about distant nebulas?

Even if you additionally started to play with this idea of a supernatural universe and what have you this would not make sense. Still you'd end up with a replacement, and not a combination of the two opposed viewpoints.

The "synthesis" of the two propositions, in the elaborated supernatural scenario, would be that while it appears that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it actually doesn't. The "synthesis" is thus not only arriving at the truth, but an explanation of the false appearance of the Earth revolving around the Sun. There must be a reinterpretation of some of the elements belonging to the 'set' of ideas, arguments, and evidence that appeared to favor the Earth revolving around the Sun.

Even if you additionally started to play with this idea of a supernatural universe and what have you this would not make sense. Still you'd end up with a replacement, and not a combination of the two opposed viewpoints.

The "synthesis" would be what you would create as you refute the heliocentric idea. The "combination" of ideas would involving taking over and reinterpreting whatever was left of the 'set' that contained the ideas, arguments, and evidence of the heliocentric "thesis." Perhaps this set would be empty, in which case there is no "synthesis" as normally understand, but a total negation.

Again, it's replacement, and I can't really figure out why would anyone need centuries old formulas devised for idealist philosophical systems to deal with such down to earth stuff.

You're right. You don't really need it in cases like this (though you can do it). Where dialectical reasoning becomes more useful is in more speculative and difficult cases.

Anyway. I don't think we're going places since it's obvious that this synthesis of yours you cannot explain in a simple and coherent way, without resorting to pictures (a room with two doors, really?) and such roundabout reasoning concerning supernatural universes and potential larger changes in people's valid and correct thinking about the world which really do not show anything

Well, I'm simply attempting to put it within the framework I've already laid out here; that of two opposing people arguing two diametrically opposed ideas. The person who is building the case for the idea the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun is surely going to reconstruct reality in a way completely foreign (and unacceptable) to us. For instance, a person in the real world doing this would almost surely use the Bible as their basis, and construct a hugely elaborate theological framework to justify Biblical inerrancy. The case for the "anti-thesis" here is going to be pretty bizarre indeed.

Okay, but that's a "synthesis" that has very little to do with any kind of dialectical philosophy.

I disagree. This is the rational kernel of the dialectical method. Where people decide to take it is another story.

Furthermore, it's also clear that we use this word to refer to combining disparate elements into a new whole (chemical synthesis, and collo), of bringing them together which is not really the case here in such examinations where it just might turn out that one set is correct, or much more correct than the other one

In the case where one set of ideas, arguments and evidence is not completely false, the "combination" of the two sets is the "synthesis." I would say in cases where one set is completely false, "synthesis" is either showing the anti-thesis is logically inconsistent and the thesis necessarily true (as in the case, say, of mathematical statements), or the "synthesis" is the shrinking of the set of the "anti-thesis" to zero elements (in the case of statements of facts, like the Earth revolving around the Sun).

[Thirsty Crow]

Okay, to continue with the sense in talking about a synthesis in cases where two fundamentally opposed viewpoints are contrasted, compared and decided upon:

The "synthesis" of the two propositions, in the elaborated supernatural scenario, would be that while it appears that the Earth revolves around the Sun, it actually doesn't. The "synthesis" is thus not only arriving at the truth, but an explanation of the false appearance of the Earth revolving around the Sun. There must be a reinterpretation of some of the elements belonging to the 'set' of ideas, arguments, and evidence that appeared to favor the Earth revolving around the Sun.

I have to yet again fall back upon asking - does it make any sense to talk of a synthesis where the significant elements of one set of ideas is actually discarded?
The situation here in the imagined scenario is that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun, and the result of the before mentioned clash of viewpoints is not a hybrid combination, but a paradigm shift so to speak, a replacement of one set with a wholly another. The reinterpretation you speak of isn't in any way retaining the elements of that set, combining them with another's; it's a wholesale invasion so to speak of one against the other. The result isn't a postulated new whole but one of the "combatant" positions that wins out and thereby manages to explain the falsity of its opponent.

Now, usually when this formula is used in philosophy, synthesis doesn't at all do the work it does when you use it like that; it's essentially a kind of a reconciliation of the two preceding elements. But here the result only includes the elements of the "thesis" (does revolve around the Sun) in that it explains away its falsity. As far as I'm concerned, it's misleading to talk about a synthesis like this, and this is strictly related to the choice of words.

The "synthesis" would be what you would create as you refute the heliocentric idea.

This depends on how we understand the "antithesis". I think this kight be crucial here.

You would have a point if the antithesis is to be understood as mere negation of a proposition: the Earth revolves around the Sun - no, it does not. Aside from the fact that in this case the synthesis yet again makes no sense to use as the term as we're obviously dealing with an alternative explanation, the resolution of this situation of course needs to involve a third element in the picture.

But if the "antithesis" is to be understood not as mere "nah it doesn't", but as this alternative explanation from the very start, we're back to square one and the problems I outlined above with figuring out how this resultant third element can be seen to incorporate both.

Or why would we even want to get entangled in such a minefield of confusion (since obviously the terms employed here are poorly defined and remain vague) and potential misleading venues for thinking and arguing that are such philosophical formulas when it is quite clear what is going on here.

Anyway, the gripe I have with this is the a priori character of the formula, the fact that it is arbitrary and malleable to the point where language use becomes almost entirely figurative and clarity is eliminated. I see no use for it, which is connected to what you say here:

You're right. You don't really need it in cases like this (though you can do it). Where dialectical reasoning becomes more useful is in more speculative and difficult cases.

1) Well yeah, one can attempt to do it but I think the potential for confusion is great and that's why such schemata are best avoided

2) Why is it more useful in speculative cases, and more importantly - why would speculation even be entertained as a valid and meaningful enterprise?

By speculation I don't mean coming up with propositions which can first be counterposed one to the other and then checked if what they say is actually the case; speculation as traditionally understood in philosophy is the reasoning about the foundational and non-empirical (foundational since it's believed to act as the underlying essence of sensuous reality, empirical reality; a world of shadows in short). In one way or another it bypasses or even sets out to undo the world as independent and functioning as best elucidated by common sense reasoning and science.

But if more speculative cases actually means problematic areas of inquiry where there's a specific process of thesis formation (is this what you mean by speculation?), how does dialectical reasoning, assuming it works in the form of thesis-antithesis-synthesis work, how is it different from a "non dialectical" approach?

The example provided by RedMaterialist I quoted, concerned with sex at birth, is a non-starter as it is entirely unclear what's the distinguishing factor between the conventional (which is as I said simply flat out wrong as it denies facts) and the dialectical.

When describing the dialectical approach such terrible confusions as "there is no absolute one or the other" are introduced. They're confusions since it is well defined what we mean when we talk of sex at birth, biological sex; what body parts and functions are relevant for talking about it. For instance, I'm pretty sure I'm "absolutely" male since my reproductive system isn't out there on the continuum mixing elements of the female reproductive system with the male one. The fact that intersex people are born does not and cannot possibly mean that I should conclude my biological sex can't be said to be male. But the trick is in the use of that notion of the absolute and the confusion it produces.

What's even worse is that the dialectical approach in the provided example is based on the (in)famous Hegel's law, simply with the added place holder called "matter" (everything changes because of addition or subtraction of matter; of course without ever clearly showing just how this specific addition does what it does). And somehow this is both a more fruitful approach and a healthy retort to erroneous views about biological sex, with the implication that the DNA of the fetus in the womb undergoes change that can be understood as addition or subtraction of...well, "matter". Supposedly the DNA changes from phase to phase in the fetal development. Supposedly, since from what little I known about embryology, this is pure nonsense and not the case.

As for the example I'd myself provide, it would be quite simple as I understand a dialectical relationship to consist of two acting objects or forces or what have you which by their action induce changes in one another. Examples of such conditions are sexual relationships for instance, the behavior of predatory animals in relation to its prey in the habitat and vice versa (of course including other organisms in the habitat) and so on. As opposed to diamat dogma, the idea of universal interconnectedness is bollocks and completely in harmony with, and devised to be a working tool in idealist philosophical systems and Hermetic mysticism. I do have doubts about the sense in talking about dialectical relationships as all interactions, situations where some two elements are brought together by means of some actions, seem to be of this kind. In other words, to say that A and B are locked in a dialectical relationship may be superfluous, as it would work well to simply say "are in a relationship".

For instance, the issue of violent crime can be explained by claiming that this is cause by physiological factors which of course depend on individuals bodies work (hormonal levels, possibly inherited traits and so on). However, a "dialectical" approach, and I really don't think this label is even necessary here, moves away from this kind of one-sided explanation and involves other relevant aspects of the situation, like social factors in behavior formation, the interplay between the physiological basis and the environment and so on.

The label isn't necessary in my opinion as it's not a special philosophical procedure, but a basic approach that aims to uncover and obtain knowledge about most of or even every relevant aspect or side to the problem. The issue is of a troublesome, yet potentially much more fruitful comprehensive thinking which doesn't rest on fundamental mystification about the only source of behavior, one that is moreover eternal and unchangeable (genes). Or something like that.

[Deep Sea]

I have to yet again fall back upon asking - does it make any sense to talk of a synthesis where the significant elements of one set of ideas is actually discarded?
The situation here in the imagined scenario is that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun, and the result of the before mentioned clash of viewpoints is not a hybrid combination, but a paradigm shift so to speak, a replacement of one set with a wholly another. The reinterpretation you speak of isn't in any way retaining the elements of that set, combining them with another's; it's a wholesale invasion so to speak of one against the other. The result isn't a postulated new whole but one of the "combatant" positions that wins out and thereby manages to explain the falsity of its opponent.

This is an interesting way to put it, but even in a "combatant" scenario, where one set of ideas, arguments, and evidence could be said to be swallowing the other, the negation of the elements of the falsified set will be added to the correct set, enlarging it and making it a "synthesis" of a sort.

That is, if the completely correct set called the "thesis" is composed of elements (representing ideas, arguments, and evidence for the "thesis") is counterpoised to its completely false set called the "anti-thesis," the shrinking of the "anti-thesis" enlarges the set called the "thesis" with new elements. The refuted elements of the "anti-thesis" A, B, C, and D become new elements to the "thesis" as -A, -B, -C, and -D. The new set called "synthesis," while remaining mostly the same as the set called "thesis," is not unchanged from its 'swallowing' or total negation of the "anti-thesis."

You would have a point if the antithesis is to be understood as mere negation of a proposition: the Earth revolves around the Sun - no, it does not. Aside from the fact that in this case the synthesis yet again makes no sense to use as the term as we're obviously dealing with an alternative explanation, the resolution of this situation of course needs to involve a third element in the picture.

But a pure "anti-thesis" must be a "mere negation" of a "thesis!" After all, while two "thesis" can be opposed to one another, they may also be opposed to another "thesis" (or many others). For instance, the "thesis" that the Earth revolves around the Sun is opposed by the "thesis" that the Sun revolves around the Earth. But they are both opposed to the "thesis" that both the Sun and the Earth revolve around a third object and not each other.

2) Why is it more useful in speculative cases, and more importantly - why would speculation even be entertained as a valid and meaningful enterprise?

It is more useful in speculative cases because the truth value of a "thesis" and "anti-thesis" is harder to ascertain. Synthesizing them could lead to new ways of looking at a problem, and their dialectical interplay will help to arrive at the heart of the issue.