If dialectical logic is actually logic...

If dialectical logic is actually logic, then why is it not applied in any meaningful way in any natural science or engineering? Where are the dialectical computers? How can it help create scientific models with descriptive and explanatory power? Why cannot people see Hegel was full of shit?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxist.com/stephen-jay-gould-tribute230502.htm
redprl.org/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

kys

t. buttrekt

The scientific method is uses dialectics.

I would argue that formal logic is not used in the sciences outside of computer science (which is more like math anyway).

In science there is a dialectical tension between current models of reality and various aspects that have either been left out of the model or explained away with postulates or axioms. When a current model has been properly studied, the only way a particular field can move forward is by reexamining its base assumptions. This usually happens because experimental data tries to confirm one of those assumptions, but fails to do so.
Then the old model and the inconsistencies get synthesized into a new model, and science has moved forward.

As an example take special relativity. We start with a theory of light as a wave in a newtonian medium called the 'ether'. Scientists try to find our relative speed to the ether by measuring the speed of light in different directions and find that this speed is actually constant. This inconsistency is turned into a postulate and combined with the laws of electromagnetism we get special relativity.

What you see is that dialectics is a logic of social processes. It's about the movements in thought processes, which can be used to get a perspective on how things will evolve over time. It is explicitly not about assigning truth values to statements or finding objective facts.

Same fag.

Except it does not.

If the field uses math, it is in a way also using formal logic since, even if not all of math can be reduced to logic (see Godel), a great deal of it can be done (Frege's proof for example).

And what you are doing can be interpreted as dialectics, but it is not at all required for rejecting assumptions at any point. It might have value as the "logic" of social processes, but as you say, it is not about assigning truth values (and I would say it is not about truth at all).

Also would like to point out, just to rustle jimmies, something….

L Y S E N K O I S M

Dialectics describes the scientific process =/= science uses dialectics as part of the process.

I'm not a fan of dialectics but it was used as a heuristic rule in biology to describe evolution:
marxist.com/stephen-jay-gould-tribute230502.htm
Also some people are working on formalizing dialectics in terms of fuzzy logic, which is indeed used in AI/compsci applications

Fuzzy logic does not require dialectical logic. If they try to formalize dialectical logic with fuzzy logic, it would just be the cute application of a hegelian/marxist mathematician/computer scientist of fuzzy logic.

And using it as an heuristic rule really does not say much. Also I will point towards Lysenkoism again.

Also this. And I would say it is more like "interpretting the scientific process so that it fits dialectics".