From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Mon Dec  9 10:47:23 EST 1991
Article 1795 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Carlson's claim that dialectic cannot be formalized
Message-ID: <40026@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 91 14:47:39 GMT
References: <rreiner.691528965@yorku.ca> <ZB50BB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 41

In article <ZB50BB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner) writes:
>VY:
>>I think that Hofstadter's account is a kind of Klassic Kartoon version
>>of an idea that is either trite or mystical mush. And loose analogies
>>between mathematical theories, e.g. topology or non-linear systems theory,
>>and the process of understanding or the inner life of the soul, or
>>the godess principle or whatever, don't appeal to me.
>
>Is Churchman's formulation one of those "loose analogies?"
>Keep that question in mind as you read the remainder of the
>article.

Don't have an opinion on Churchman. I was referring to the claim that
the dialectic was a form of non-linear system theory, and that Hofstadter's
introspection on his, no doubt wonderous, cerebral processes could be
likened to topology. 

>
>RC:
>>I watched a discussion between psychologist Jeffrey Mishlove, the
>>host of PBS's _Thinking Allowed_ and a biologist named Rupert
>>Sheldrake.  Sheldrake argued that "creativity" involved the
>>Sheldrake.  Sheldrake argued that "creativity" involved the
>>"synthesis" of "opposing" "ideas."  Hmm, I thought, another
>>scientist reinventing the dialectic.)
>
>VY:
>>Well, it's not a particularly deep concept, is it? It's not like
>>he stumbled on Lagrange's theorem or quicksort or  the infield fly rule
>>or anything else that you need a minute or two of work to comprehend.
>
>Here he seems to be saying that the dialectic is so obvious it
>doesn't need to be studied.  Is that why analytic theorists don't
>study it? 

Don't have an opinion on the motives of analytic theorists. Resolving
contradictions is something that should be familiar to every scientist
and automobile mechanic. Perhaps I'm just too dense, but when I read
the "dialectical" arguments of such lumineries as Hofstadter  the point
eludes me.  


