i too waiting for reply...
in addition any body can explain each and evry thing as simple as possible...

I'd like people to take a look at the past two pages, where a clear discussion was taking place, and contrast it to Rosa's spam-essay on dialectics.

I'm not sure about you, but the H1a, H3 crap came out of nowhere to me. She's taken a simple subject and turned it to an inaccessible, unintelligible mess.

Way to go.

My response however, is this. Your problem Rosa is your deep-seated belief that the only issue we have with the traditional view of change is the wording, which is not it. It's a view of how change happens, not what words to use to describe it. That was what you missed in your spam-essay.

What the fuck is your problem? Where did I say anything about intelligent forces? When someone says you need to change your oil to reduce friction, do you ask them if they think that your engine is angry at the frame?

The only appeal to mystical intelligences here, is my attempt to have a conversation with a wall behind a keyboard, who calls herself a logician.

CYM:

"I'm not sure about you, but the H1a, H3 crap came out of nowhere to me. She's taken a simple subject and turned it to an inaccessible, unintelligible mess."

[And Hegel is clarity itself is he?]

Oh dear, still incapable of following an ordinary language argument, CYM? One written largely in the the material language of workers, and not the ruling-class language Hegel filched from Plotinus, Proclus, Eckhart, Boheme and Fichte?

"My response however, is this. Your problem Rosa is your deep-seated belief that the only issue we have with the traditional view of change is the wording, which is not it. It's a view of how change happens, not what words to use to describe it."

Well, it turns out that every time you lot try to 'explain' change, or how you see it happenning, the language you use falls apart faster than Bush's excuse for invading Iraq. I merely pointed this out. Sorry to spoil your mystical reverie.

In that non-Essay (once again, the post you refer to was merely a footnote to a longer Essay) I was not analysing the dialectical account of change, merely exposing the empty ruling-class langauge you lot have borrowed from Hegel, and the rest. In fact, I demolish the DM-account of change, if such it may be called, in several other essays (which you refuse to read -- so stay ignorant).

As I show -- and the argument was clearly over your head (or you have mysteriously lost the capacity to concentrate) -- ordinary langage is perfectly adequate to account for change; it is the wooden language you lot use that isn't.

[E.g., it implies, despite all your attempts to deny it, that light bulbs can change themselves and that plants argue with the seeds from which they grow. And you have the cheek to point a few grubby fingers at me.]

And, the use of language is important here, that is, unless you have another way of communicating your ideas (Aldis lamp? Semaphore? Morse Code?).

Now, I seem to recall that you have tried to use language coherently from time to time. So even you agree it is imporatnt to refrain from writing nonsense (like the stuff Hegel filled all those books with).

I would merely wish you did this more often. Hence the sound advice I keep giving you.

But do I get any thanks?

You are lucky I do not give up on you. Then you'd be scr*wed.

Now, ruling-class theorists have denigrated the langauge of ordinary workers for thousands of years; Hegel and DM-theorists are thus merely the latest in a long line.

But, I can understand if you are miffed and a little embarrassed at having your class loyalties exposed so publicly.

I did not wish this one you; you are the one who keeps putting his head over the parapet, and adverting both to your logically-challenged state, and to the fact that you prefer the wooden ruling-class jargon Hegel used, over good old-fashioned material language. [Where 'to contradict' means the 'gain-say', for example.]

My advice: stop inflicting public pain on yourself in this way, CYMrade (or we will begin to suspect you like being humiliated by a woman -- and for free).

"What the fuck is your problem? Where did I say anything about intelligent forces?"

So, this means you are now going to drop the idea that forces contradict one another (i.e., that they argue among themselves), eh? Good.

And please issue yourself another warning (fat chance!) for using the 'F' word.

Hegel did not teach you to do this. You've been knocking around with street dialecticans haven't you, you naughty boy. Bad associations spoil useful comrades.

On a more serious note, this is not very intelligent language, CYM. I would say I had hoped for better from you, but to be honest, its about what I expected.

For all your love of contradictions, you DM-geeks do not like to be contradicted, do you, you little tinkers.

[Which must mean that your theory cannot change; think about it -- if you can.]

"The only appeal to mystical intelligences here, is my attempt to have a conversation with a wall behind a keyboard, who calls herself a logician."

We can conclude several things from this:

1) Your attempt to contradict me (when coupled with your recent (but welcome)denial that contradictions reveal intelligence at work) means that you do not rate your own intelligence very high; possibly zero?

For my part, I think you are being a little hard on yourself; but whatever makes you happy. I do not like to contradict you DM-nuts, since you use the 'F' word, and that is very scary.

See how my typing is getting very shaky.

2) You have run out of arguments, and are now falling back on the usual DM-tactic: abuse.

So, I accept your surrender, comrade. It was long overdue.

I now declare this thread is clean -- exorcised free from all those nasty mystical Hermetic ghosties.

Go in peaces, my son -- and CYM no more.

Shyam, I'd try to do this myself, but what you are asking is in fact impossible to achieve in any thread monitored by CYM; he has threatened to delete any of my Essays that he 'deems' spam.

So, you will find a summary of my ideas on this at my site:

http://www.anti-dialectics.org.

Check out Essay Sixteen, broken into parts here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm

The word contradiction is bourgeois?

This is hilarious, nothing in that word implies intelligent forces.

You have contradicting, or conflicting forces, whatever you wanna call it.

These forces accumulate, and one breaks through.

Tadaa!

There's your change.

That is dialectics in a nut-shell.

See? No need for crazy-talk, or 60 page essays.

This is the learning section, simplify.

CYM:

"The word contradiction is bourgeois?"

It's mystical use is Hermetic, and thus ruling-class. [I did not use the word 'bourgeois'.]

"This is hilarious, nothing in that word implies intelligent forces."

I agree, so why do you lot keep saying that forces can contradict, if they cannot speak?

The joke is on you.

And now we get to the deep, penetrating logic we have come to know and loathe from DM-mystics:

"These forces accumulate, and one breaks through."

So, forces save money (accumulate) and then one escapes from jail, eh?

"There's your change."

Where?

"That is dialectics in a nut-shell."

And that is the proper place for it, except I'd change the second half of that word to "house".

"See? No need for crazy-talk, or 60 page essays."

And that is why dialetics will never be a science because of know-nothings like you.

You cannot (or will not) work the details out, and your 'theory' (sorry, joke of a theory) stays at the hand-waving stage. To compound things, you refuse to look at the problems associated with the mystical ideas you blandly swallow (you are clearly unaware of them).

"This is the learning section, simplify."

Done it.

I used ordinary language, not the mystical jargon Hegel filched from idealist mystics.

OK, I've read part of this thread, but I still do not understand how dialectical reasoning is supposed to "work". I know how formal logic works (I think), and I know how the scientific method is supposed to work.

What more do Marxists, as supposedly scientific people, need more than that?

It has been said that formal logic cannot deal with change. However, scientists have created theories on how main sequence stars change into red giants via fusion of their hydrogen (and helium I think) reserves into heavier elements. The Main Sequence star has now changed into a Red Giant. This theory was created using formal logic. How is DM superior? Scientists, using formal logic, have explained to a layman like me how and why main sequence stars change into red giants.

How can DM, with it's own technical jargon, explain it any clearer?

Needless to say, I am deeply skeptical of the utility of DM due to the massive success that formal logic has in explaining how things change.

I'll be honest, I just don't get the point of "dialectics" or "dialectic" materialism.

Firstly, from what I've read, most of the underlying theory is fundamentally flawed and worse, several "dialactical laws" are demonstrably false.

That said, though, I am in no way a "dialetician" and do not claim to have a complete grasp on the subject. And so it is certainly possible that there are some useful aspects to dialectical theory.

But if that is true, why can they not be recognized independently of Hellegian metaphysics? That is if, say, the "law of the negation of the negation" is actually true, then it must also be demonstrably true.

And since there is nothing nescessarily illogical about such a "law", if it can be empiracally or logically demonstrated to be true then why could it not simply be adopted as scientific theory?

Where, in short, is the need for the word "dialectics"?

If its precepts are externalistically valid then they're externalistically valid. If they're not, then they're not. And either way, it presents absolutely no problem to formal logic.

But accepting that "dialectics" should be used "in addition to" formal logic or as a guiding "philosophy" of formal logic, nescessitates that we expand our frame of reference, something which should only be done when absolutely nescessary.

Logic, as it presently exists, is predicated on a few axiomatic principles. From these axioms, along with obervational data, all of our current understanding of the universe can be derived.

Now, of course, the problem with axioms from a materialist perspective is that, by definition, they cannot be proven. Accordingly, if our aim is to be as materially objective as possible, then we have an obligation to minimze our axioms.

Adding "dialectical" principles to the list strikes me as an example of unnescessarily complicating our base table. Again, if the fundmanetal principles of "dialectics" are true they can be derived from pre-existing axioms and principles.

So, to take another example, if quantitative change "must" inevitably lead to qualitative change and that rule exists as an absolute then, by definition, it would be constantly observed and so logically induced.

Similarly, if such a "law" motivates all universal variables than even in a purely theoretical setting, scientists would discover that such a "law" were consistantly required.

And, in fact, it kind of is already. I, personally, reject the "quantitative into qualitative" "law" as dialectically stated, but the fact is that in some form the above cannot be denied.

That form however is simply elementary physics.

For thousands of years, now, we have accepted that, outside of the classroom, infinity has no reality. Accordingly, any process must in the end stop. From a "dialectical" perspective, that stop (in whatever form it takes) is considered a "qualitative change" and as such a validation of "dialectical theory".

It's really a bit of a cop-out though, isn't it.

Worse though, it's actually even paradoxically inconsistant when it comes to some very concrete questions; the origin and nature of the universe, for instance.

Some "dialeticians", you see, assert simultaenously that all quantitative changes must result in qualitative ones and that that universe has no end. If the contradiction doesn't seem immediately apparent, just remember that the universe is constantly undergoing quantitative changes.

This problem really can't be overlooked. The fact that these "dialectical" axioms result in contradictive results must be considered. "Dialectics" does claim to be the "logic of contadiction", but somehow I doubt that's what's meant by it.

Carrying on though, "dialectics" chief claim is, again, that it is capable of understanding and describing change, whereas "formal logic" is not. Frankly, I'm baffled by such a suggestion.

Firstly, "formal logic" is far from being the anachronistic beast that "dialeticians" perceive it to be. It may trace back to ancient times but that is soley because so many of its precepts are intuitive.

Axiomatically speaking, however, it is a constantly evolving method and, more importantly, a constantly verified one.

And that said, it must be pointed out that for all its criticisms of it, "dialectics" is nonethless itself predicated on "formal logic"!

As far as I can tell, "dialectics" makes a set of elementary assertions (supposedly based on obervational data) and then logically derives its rules and predictions from them. It is just as "formal" in its use of logic as any other "scientific" hypothesis and certainly offers nothing that could "supplant" logic.

Now, it's true that some "dialecticians" go further in their philosophy and construe from "dialectical materialism" a philisophical approach regarding mathematics and scientitific methodology, but from what I've seen, this is highly controversial even in "dialectical" circles.

Accordingly, I'm fairly confident in saying that the ant-deductive approach adopted by some "dialectical" scholllars is more about personal taste than it is about orthodox Marxism.

In fact, even on this board, I have seen self-described adherents to "dialectics" argue on both sides of "dialectic" questions. In a recent thread in S&E, for instance, one member argued that "dialectics" nescessitates an infinite universe, while another asserted the reverse.

Frankly, I have no way of telling which one was right. Neither, by the way, does anyone else. Yes, we can compare their statements with "dialectical" axioms, but, really, what's the point?

Who cares whether or not someone sticks to a set of rules unless those rules have objective importance. And, as yet, I have not seen anyone demonstrate that that is true for "dialectics".

I am no scientist but, tellingly, neither are most "dialeticians". Furthermore, it would seem that, even without their "dialectical" help, science has managed to truck on just fine. In the hundred and fifty years since Marx and Engles "refined" Hegel's mysticism, science has been able to significantly advance without reference to Prussian philosophy.

Einstein did not need to reference his copy of Wissenschaft der Logik before formulating his groundbreaking theorums; nor did Hawking need to brush up on his Engles before discovering the singularity.

The fact is that for all the insistance that the "dialectic" is essential, historically it hasn't been.

And so accordingly, I am retiscent to needlessly clutter our scientific method by adding principles of which we have no convincing evidence.

If people wish to "believe" in the "dialectic", I suppose that is their right. But 150 years after its introduction, it is becoming increasingly and increasingly unlikely that "dialectics" is going to play any serious role in the history of humanity.

Honestly, though, that doesn't matter. In the end, labels and "credit" are insignificant. All that matters is progress itself, and if certain tenents of "dialectics" turn out to help in that endeavour, they will be discovered independently. But if, as I suspect, they don't, it's all the better for science.

The simpler we keep our tools, after all, the easier they are to wield.

Thank you LSD for your very clear and concise post on this matter. It has helped me no end.

Noxion and LSD, I think you are largely right, but Formal Logic (to be precise, modern Tense Logic) handles change eminently well (even Aristotelian Logic can cope with it, as I showed on an earlier thread).

The only people you will find making this claim are those who know no logic (over and above that which they have read in other DM-tracts, the authors of which tracts will have copied these myths off other DM-fabulators).

You will find them saying things like Aristotle's logic is based on the law of identity (when Aristotle never even so much as mentions this 'law', or refers to identity at all -- this notion only appears in Western thought after the 17th century!).

No matter how many times they are told they all say the say incorrect things.

No change there then.

And LSD, modern logic does not need axioms; check out Gentzen's system called: Natural Deduction (which is non-axiomatic):

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/M...ns/Gentzen.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Gentzen

[Unfortunately, Gentzen was a Nazi supporter! But that should no more put us off his system than Hegel's right wing ideas put off dialecticians.]

And I take apart the Quantity into Quality 'law' here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

Rosa wrote:

Soviet scientists, especially during Stalin's time, were a notable exception to that, primarily because genuflection before the altar of diamat was often essential for winning state support for scientific research. It was not uncommon in the Soviet Union for scientific debates to take the form of clashes over the proper interpretation of dialectical materialism. Thus, in the Soviet debates over genetics, the Soviet Mendelians like Vavilov made the argument that Mendelism represented the true dialectical understanding of heredity, whereas, Lysenko and his disciples contended that they represented the true dialectical materialist position. The Lysenkoists won that debate in the sense that Stalin threw his support to them rather than to the Mendelians, who wound up in the gulags.

In the West, the British biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, after becoming a Communist, became insistent that he found inspiration for his researches in dialectical materialism. This later became a bit embarassing for him, once Stalin firmly opted for Lysenkoism, since Haldane was one of the leading Mendelian geneticists in the world. For that and other reasons, he eventually withdrew from the British CP.

On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the paleontologist (and "red diaper baby"), Stephen Jay Gould professed to find some inspiration in dialectics.

For example in The Panda's Thumb, there is an essay "Episodic Evolutionary Change," where Gould sketches out the relation of his punctuationalism with dialectics. He writes:

"If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature, then we should consider alternate philosophies of change to enlarge our realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet Union, for example, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change - the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational. They speak, for example, of the "transformation of quantity into quality." This may sound like mumbo jumbo, but it suggests that change occurs in large leaps following a slow accumulation of stresses that a system resists until it reaches the breaking point. Heat water and it eventually boils. Oppress the workers more and more and bring on the revolution. Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many Russian paleontologists support a model very similar to our punctuated equilibria."

"I emphatically do not assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctuational change. Any attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a grandiose notion would border on the nonsensical. Gradualism sometimes works well. (I often fly over the folded Appalachians and marvel at the striking parallel ridges left standing by gradual erosion of the softer rocks surrounding them). I make a simple plea for pluralism in guiding philosophies, and for the recognition of such philosophies, however hidden and unarticulated, constrain all our thought. The dialectical laws express an ideology quite openly; our Western preference for gradualism does the same more subtly."

"Nonetheless, I will confess to a personal belief that a punctuational view may prove to map tempos of biological and geologic change more accurately and more often than any of its competitors - if only because complex systems in steady state are both common and highly resistant to change."

I think a careful reading of Gould's words will indicate that he viewed dialectics as a heuristic for generating hypotheses concerning the behavior of complex systems. Note that he considered what he called the punctuational view to be a "constraining prejudice" - what Gerald Holton (about whom Gould had written favorably in the NY Review of Books) would call a 'themata.' Note also that Gould talked about expanding our range of "constraining prejudices" rather than dogmatically insisting upon the need to replace gradualism by punctuationalism. Gould recognized that such views are not ultimately true or false but only more or less useful in helping us to formulate new testable hypotheses.

Well, that quote pretty much says it, as was repeated over and over again, dialectics is not a replacement for formal logic. It's a complimentary philosophy that better explains more complex processes.

Scientists deal with extremely complex processes all the time - The Met Office, as far as I know, does not use dialectics.

Whether it does or not is irrelevant, it's been shown to be useful in eliminating unfruitful hypotheses and to be useful in approaching processes of change from the right perspective.

How much time would have been saved had Darwin not subscribed to gradualism, and realized then and there that species were born in build-ups and explosions?

As for LSD and the infinite universe, that is not exclusively dialectical. The reasons given by dialecticians tend to be, but even just simple formal logic excludes the possibility of a finite universe. It's just straightforward materialism. If everything comes from something, you have an infinite chain of causality. Period. There is no "time outside of time", where nothing was there, and then there was. There is no infinitely small starting point, requiring an infinitely large amount of energy to explode into the universe we see today.

No reason at all to believe in a finite universe, the "beginning" is just god through the back door.

I beg to differ. Compared to formal logic, DM is quite frankly confusing.

Well, that itself was discovered using the normal kind of logic that scientists use everyday, so dialectics can't exactly claim that "crown".

Observations of the material universe indicate that it's expanding, strongly suggesting finity. Big Bang theory tells us that the universe began as a singularity, not how that singularity came about. Also, a finite universe does not require an infinite amount of energy to exist.

Besides, a universe infinite in time is impossible in it's current form due to the laws of thermodynamics (If the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time then the whole universe would be the same temperature - infinity is more than enough time for total entropy to set in), and a universe infinite in space is impossible due to the light speed barrier.

The Big Bang theory has been tested by the world's best cosmologists and has not been found wanting.

Utter bullshit. Big Bang theory requires no supernatural element.

I would tend to agree with Gould here, especially as he is not "endorsing" the "dialectical". What he is saying is that gradualism is often an unconscious assumption in Western thought and that it it's important that we not let ourselves be misled by it.

Basically, he is pointing out that researcher bias cannot be dismissed and that it is essential that we be as open minded as possible.

That is the very opposite of "dialectics", however, because "dialectics" by its nature nescessistates that we restrict our studies. That's what "law" does after all, it restricts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen J. Gould+--> (Stephen J. Gould)I emphatically do not assert the general "truth" of this philosophy of punctuational change. Any attempt to support the exclusive validity of such a grandiose notion would border on the nonsensical. Gradualism sometimes works well.[/b]

Absolutetely on the ball!

How any one can claim after reading that that Gould in any way supports "dialectics" as a "philosophy of science" is beyond me. He quite clearly makes his opinion known here and it's that "dialectics" as formulated is too "grandiose" to be useful.

It would "nonsensical", in his words, to try and apply "dialectics" exclusively.

Now, supporters will rebut this by claiming that "dialectics" is "not" exclusive and that it's meant to be used in "conjunction" with "formal" science. All that I can say to that, though, is what's the point then?

Basically we are ending up with the conclusion that sometimes things are punctial and sometimes they are gradual or perhaps sometimes negation is negated and sometimes it is not or how about sometimes quantitative change leads to qualitative change but sometimes it doesn't.

Frankly, that seems like a frightful waste of time.

If "dialectical" "laws" are not actually "law" then they are useless to science. Either "dialectical" rules are always true or we bunk the whole business.

Remember, a broken clock is right twice a day, that doesn't mean it shoudn't be thrown away.

Quote:

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana Well, that quote pretty much says it, as was repeated over and over again, dialectics is not a replacement for formal logic. It's a complimentary philosophy that better explains more complex processes.

But, again, what's the point?

If the "dialectical" premises are correct then they will be found to be so independently. Where is the nescessity to complicate science by introducing an entirely new "philosophy" to address issues that are already being addressed?

In other words, the word "dialectics", and what using it signifies, is the problem here.

Science, after all, is not a monolithic or unchanging entity. It is constantly updating and improving itself and often this means adopting from previously "unscientific" fields.

Herbal or orthomolecular medicine, for example, is often considered to be unscientific because so many of its claims are "spiritual" or "new age" in nature. That said though, there is some convincing evidence that some so-called "alternative" treatments are effective. Accordingly, today we see science attempting to measure exactly how and why that is so that the beneficial aspects can be properly utilized.

So, similarly, it is not impossible that there may be some value hiddin within esoteric Prussian metaphysics. And if that turns out to be true, then we should definitely attempt to integrate those principles with our current understanding but we should not adopt "dialectics" in any form, merely because it happens to be occasionaly right.

Science is based on certain basic logical and empirical principles. Adding an entire set of new axioms undermines that base.

It doesn't matter whether it's called a "theory" or a "revelation" or a "philosophy"; anything that is inserted into logic or science without rigorous evidence behind it, destroys the entire framework of scientific enquiry.

Luckily, of course, most scientists realize this and have no patience for "dialectics". Like with the PETA movement, this is a cause which is doomed from the start. The world has quite simply moved on.

Hegel's time is over.

Quote:

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana Whether it does or not is irrelevant, it's been shown to be useful in eliminating unfruitful hypotheses and to be useful in approaching processes of change from the right perspective.

Except it hasn't!

For all the talk of the value of "dialectics" and "dialectical" materialism, we have still yet to see concrete evidence that, as a "philosophy", "dialectics" yields results.

Sure, it's had a few hits and misses along the way. "Dialecticians" love to claim that Soviet scientists understood quantum physics before western ones. That's despite the fact, however, that much of their findings were later discredited and that most of the truly important beakthroughs (like those by Hawking, Penrose, and Feynman) were made by non-"dialectical" researchers.

And I don't think that we even have to go into the Lysenko debacle. Let's just keep in mind that as far as the Soviet "dialecticians" of the day were concerned, Lysenko was perfectly correct.

And that, you see, is the problem with "dialectics". For all its claims of being scientific, the fact is that it is eminently hard to determine just what is "proper" or "inproper" use of the "dialectic"!

Unlike with the scientific method, there is no established means of verifying "dialectical" conclusions. Who's to say what's the antithesis or what's the synthesis? How does one determine when a qualitative change occurs as opposed to a exogenously induced one?

A science that isn't scientific is worse than useless. And unless "dialectics" finds away to make itself falsifiable, there is simply no point in trying to use it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana How much time would have been saved had Darwin not subscribed to gradualism, and realized then and there that species were born in build-ups and explosions?

Well, how much time would have been lost if Mendel had assumed that all changes are punctual?

You see the problem is not in making wrong assumptions, it's in making any assumptions. That includes both a "dialecal" and non-"dialectical" ones.

The critical difference, however, is that logic does not rely on gradualism. Despite the claims of "dialecticians", logic is quite capable of dealing with punctuated change. Indeed, even in evolution itself, the theory of punctuated equilibrium has a substantial following, even though virtually no evolutionary biologists have even heard of "dialectics".

Cultural biases and hidden assumptions are always a problem in science. People do tend to subconsciously inject their societal beliefs into their research. But the solution to "western" bias is not to replace it with a Prussian one!

Cultural bias must be eliminated not modified. And assuming that "all change is punctual" is just as illogical as assuming that all change is gradual.

Again, accepting "dialectics" requires that we accept its chief tenants as valid, and since these tenants are intrinsically assumptive, buying into "dialectics" requires that we critically undermine science.

Now, supporters of "dialectics" like to speak a great deal about "philosophies" and how "dialectics" is not a science it's a "guiding philosophy". The problem with that statement, though, is that, far from restricting itself to scientific philosophy, "dialectical" materialism makes claims about the world.

For one obvious example, it claims that quantitative change "must" result in qualitiative change. Well, that's not a statement about "science", it's a statement about material reality.

More than that, it's an unfounded one!

The fact is that sometimes change is gradual and sometimes quantitative changes just go continue.

Likwise the "law" of the "negation of the negation", if applied to, say, biology, would result in entirely eronious conclusions. Many biological processes operate completly circularly. And the same is true for science accross the board.

You see, the lesson here is not that "formal logic" is bad, it's that bias is bad.

So should scientists keep open minds? Yes. Should they explore all possibilites when conducting research? Yes. Should they adopt "dialectical materialism" as a "philosophy of science"? Absolutely not.

Quote:

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana As for LSD and the infinite universe, that is not exclusively dialectical. The reasons given by dialecticians tend to be, but even just simple formal logic excludes the possibility of a finite universe.

No it doesn't

Again, if that were true, there would be more support for the steady state theory. As it stands, of course, virtually no one believes in a changeless universe.

There was a time, however, about 50 years ago, when steady state was dominant. What happened? It was proven to be incorrect. Now, is the Big Bang a "perfect" replacement? Do we know "everything" about it? Of course not, but to reject that which we do know because it is incomplete, is the hight of suicidal arrogance.

A lot of our knowledge is rudimentary and undeveloped, but it's still better than it's been at any time in human history, and it took absolutetly no "dialectics" to get us here.

I read the book, Fehr, and so I understand the position you're coming from. But take it from someone who has at least a basic grasp of theoretical physics, Grant and Wood are dead wrong.

I did a little research, by the way, and neither of them are scientists or have any training in the field. Worse than that, they show, in their writing, a complete lack of understanding on even the elementary issues.

For one thing, they outright reject any scientific theory based on deductive mathematics, even if it is later confirmed through observation. Rather they seem to be endorsing some kind of bizarre meta-inductive approach by which all science must not only be entirely based on obervations but must also be intuitive to retired British politicians!

Basically, if they don't get it, it "must" be wrong. Sorry, but I am going to take the consensus of the entire scientific field over the personal opinion of a couple of labour MPs.

Quote:

Che y Marijuana

Quote:

@ It's just straightforward materialism. If everything comes from something, you have an infinite chain of causality. Period.

Current theoretical physicical data indicates that the universe exploded several billion years ago. Whether this was truly the "beginning" or not, we can't know, but that the universe has been expanding from a central point over billions of years and that radiation from an enormous central explosion is still detectable ...these are facts.

How does your "constant universe" theory account for CMB? How does it explain Penzias' and Wilson's discovery?

Your desire to throw out the entire Big Bang theory because it is not perfect and does not explain all the facts is disturbingly similar to the Creationistss claim that evolution must be bunked because it is not perfect and does not explain all the facts.

Neither, of course, are valid.

Quote:

Che y Marijuana

Bullshit.

It may initially seem "uncomfortable" that the Big Bang seems vaguely Judeo-Christian, but that's a complete and utter coincidence.

Think about it. There are only two real possibilites for a creation myth: either, one, the universe has always existed (like in some Native American traditions), or two, it had a begining (such as in Judaic and classical myths).

Now, throughout history, the latter has been far more common than the former. Why? Because people have observed that the world around them is finite and so projected this characteristic back to the universe itself.

In other words, you're looking at this backwards and giving Christianity far too much credit.

You see, the reason that Christians today believe that the universe had a begining is because, thousands of years ago, it was observed that everything is finite. And that obervation, as far as we can tell, was correct.

Myths you see, do not invent themselves.

Furthermore, it is also worth noting that most scientists today do not believe that the Big Bang was the true begining, merely the begining of this universe. It's somewhat complex, but one of the more interesting ideas currently flaoting around is that Big Bang like events are actually the result of the collision of two paradimensional planes resulting in the release of mass energies at a singularity point.

Obviously, this is all speculation, but to claim that the Big Bang nescessitates "God" is utter rubbish.

Scientists accept the theory of the Big Bang because observational and theoretical data support it. Period!

I'll grant you, it would make a much finer argumentative tool if science told us that the universe didn't have a beginning. It would certainly make it easier to debunk Christian mythology.

But it is just as dangerous to abuse science to disprove religion as it is to abuse it prove it.

I'll post a more in-depth reply when I get back, I have to go continue organizing the elections now, but I wanted to reply more specifically on the finite universe.

In saying that everything has a beginning, including the universe, you are asserting that the universe is a "thing". The reality is, the universe does not exist beyond a concept or a word, except as a collection of things. It is not an object that has a beginning or an end. It is an abstract classification we use to describe the vast mixture of emptiness and matter in varying concentrations that exists.

What you are looking for is, is there a beginning to matter, which again, is just an abstract classification we use to describe the material universe. I think it's pretty clear that there is no singular beginning, even if in our portion of the universe an explosion (or many) may have occurred. It is quite possible that there are explosions in the history of the universe, but to say that any of it could be a beginning point is wrong.

As for whether or not they are scientists, it's a book that takes a broad view of the history and present debates within science, and uses that as a basis to draw philosophical conclusions. It is perfectly within their right to do that, so long as their sources are well-documented, which they are.

That's a semantic coincidence, not an important theoretical distinction.

No, the universe is not a "thing" in the traditional meaning of that word. But it does have a distinct existance. That is, the "universe" as described by general relativity means space-time and all that it encompases.

It's possible that the universe is more than this (especially if string theory is correct), but that the universe is distinct is not disputed.

I think that a lot the confusion here is actually due to nothing more than the complexity of the subject. Those of us who have not studied advanced theoretical physics or topology or quantum mechanics are simply not equiped with the cognitive tools to fully process this information.

Instead we try to approch these questions from "intuitive" or "common sense" angles, which is, of course, completely futile.

The universe is not restricted to human "common sense", it is far far more complex than that. And to imagine that the vast intricacies of existance can be described through Prussian metaphysics is blindingly naive.

Not just matter, matter-energy.

And, again, within theoretical physics, "matter" is not an "abstract", it's very much a concrete form. Our tendency in lay speech to be vague and nonspecific in these terms does not reflect on the scientific community.

And speaking of that community, over the years, it's managed to come up with some very established and very credible laws of matter and energy. One of those is the second law of thermodynamics.

As I'm sure you know, it bascially states that entropy increases. Now if, as you claim, matter has no finite begining, then it must have been here for ever which would, naturally, nescessitate that entropy has been increasing infinitely; that entropy has infinitely increased.

Obviously that hasn't happened.

Now, your book basically dismisses thermodynamics as "irrelevent" to large systems, but offers absolutely no evidence in favour of this radical diversion. Rather that fact that the second law leads to some "bleak" conclcusions is enough for them to dismiss the topic entirely.

This is quite similar to how they address other scientific mainstays. Ignoring them if they don't like them or openly assuming their nonexistance if they conflict with "dialectics".

And, always, their mantra is that "new discoveries are on the horizon", we "haven't discovered yet" the critical key that will prove them correct.

Well, sorry, but science doesn't allow that kind of reasoning. We work with the data we have now to construct the conclusions that make sense. Whether or not contradicting data will come later is something that we cannot say and we certainly cannot base a paradigm on the "future"!

If there is no evidence in favour of "dialectics" today (and there isn't), then we must accept that its scientifically a non-issue. If someday that changes, we can bring up the topic again, but for now it's a moot subject.

You may believe that, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Again, neither of us are scientists, but thos who have devoted their lives to styudying this subject have reached a pretty coherent consensus. If the question was really as open as you insist it is, there would be far more contention among scientists.

The fact is, again, that all of our observational and theoretical data take us back to the same place.

We don't know if the Big Bang was the begining of existance, we do know that it was almost certainly the begining of our present universe and that basic scientific laws dictate that the universe cannot be infinite.

Again, our knowledge is still limited, but that does mean that we should throw out that which we do know.

Well, of course!

I never denied that they had a "right" to publish the book. They had the "right" to publish any damn thing they wanted to, the question, however, is whether or not they are credible.

And, again, I must say that I found them to be extremely ignorant on the important questions and frustratingly rigid in their analyses.

Like I was pointing earlier, the problem with laymen approaching complex theoretical physics is that, most of the time, they don't understand it. So it is with this book.

The misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and downright inaccuracies in that text are too numerous to count. I highly doubt that it was intentional, but, again, because the authors were largely ignorant about the subject at hand, a good deal of their "information" is just plain wrong.

An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but there are situations in which authority is nescessary. You wouldn't want a fireman to assemble your car and you wouldn't trust a car mechanic to perform open heart surgery.

Likewise, when it comes to science, you really want it to be done by scientists: people with an understanding of the elements involved.

In this case, neither of the authors had any degree of training in any of the relevent fields.

And, since you raised the issue, it must be pointed out that in terms of citation, the book is woefully lacking.

Yes, they occasionaly document their claims, but in a 400 page book, they have barely 100 references.

By contrast, a 200 page Chomsky book that happens to be sitting on my desk has over 700 citations despite being half the size. And a Pinker book I have which is about the same size as Reason in Revolt has over 1000.

And neither of those books are contending anything particularly earth-shattering! Not to the degree that your book is. When someone is contending that the entire scientific establishment is wrong and that a universally accepted theory is incorrect, there is a nescessity for even more scrupulousness.

Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. And, whether it be general relativity, the Big Bang, or singularities, this book makes some pretty extraordinary claims!

Unfortunately, it fails to actually back any of them up with cold hard science.

I am away from home at present so I cannot reply to these comments.

I get back on Monday, so I will respond then.

It is said that Marx wanted to write a short book on dialectics, in which he would spell out what he considered to be its "rational kernal," but he never got around to doing the book. It seems to me that Stephen Gould, in the short excerpt that I provided above, managed to come close in laying out the rational kernal of dialectics. For him, to the extent that there was any value at all in dialectics for science, it was as a heuristic for suggesting testable hypotheses concerning the behaviors of complex systems. In Gould's view, Engels' "dialectical laws" have some value insomuch as they provided an alternative set of constraining prejudices to the ones prevalent in Western societies (i.e. recognizing that change can occur in discontinuous jumps as well as gradually, that complex systems can be understood holistically as well as reductively), and that's it. Dialectics, as Gould readily admitted, cannot prove or verify hypotheses; to do that requires usage of the traditional scientific methods of experimental testing in conjunction with ordinary inductive and deductive reasoning. To the extent that dialectics may have any value for science, it is in the context of discovery, not in the context of justification, where it has no value at all.


To push dialectics as possessing the exclusive truth about the world, would in Gould's view be nonsensical.