From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Mon Dec  9 10:48:33 EST 1991
Article 1915 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!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: <40287@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 19:59:26 GMT
References: <40141@dime.cs.umass.edu> <JFeHcB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 68

In article <JFeHcB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>> In article <a6sDcB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richa
VY:
[re Hofstadter]
>> No content. One of the components of learning is constructing or
>> recognizing patterns. One of the ways in which complex systems are
>> constructed,both by humans and by nature, is by connecting a lot of
>> simpler systems. Sometimes we get more insight out of studying systems
>> as coherent wholes, rather than as collections of parts (e.g., slugs as
>> slugs instead of slugs as molecule clumps).  Sometimes we perceive
>> contradictions or randomness where further understanding will show us 
>> consistency or patterns.
>> Did I miss something?
>
>Yes, you did.  Dialectical thought isn't primarily "scientific"
>thought. It is "philosophical" or "dogmatic" or "verbal" or
>"ideological" (I think the current preferred term is
>"interpretive") and occurs in the context of two competing
>discourses (presumably in general representing some real
>interests, either material or relating to identity or
>self-definition).  You are taking it as a model or guide for
>studying reality in a scientific sense.  (Hegel and Marx saw
>"dialectical processes" working themselves out in human history. I
>think what they saw were dialectical-_like_ processes where the
>dialectical model helped a little in categorizing and
>understanding what was going on.)
>

Thanks for clearing it up. Now I see why I could discern no scientific
content in the Eternal Golden Braid --- there was none. Intead there
was some "philosophy", some "dogma", and some "verbalization".

>I think that the dialectical thought, by sharpening up the edges
>of a notion or theory, may serve to give structure or guidance to
>more precise scientific work which, of course, takes the form of
>describing the object under study as if it were a mechanism
>comprised of parts -- gears, wheels, pulleys, etc. -- which work
>together.

I think you confuse "scientific thought" with crude reductionism. 
There are countless examples of scientific and mathematical discourse
in which the reduction of an object to its constituent parts is not 
of great interest. One example of what you might consider "dialectical
thought" is in dual geometric and algebraic representations of mathematical
objects --- it is rare that anyone will claim that one representation is
more basic than the other and jumping back and forth between representations
is often quite useful.

>Here I think he is finding the dialectic useful because it
>foregrounds the reciprocal, back and forth, interaction of part
>and whole which a _conceptually_ mechanistic meta-model seems to
>downplay.  (Ultimately there must be a description in mechanistic
>terms or we don't have a "science," but an "interpretive system.")
>The dialectical way of thinking is also non-foundational (i.e.,
>there is no basement) but a series of more and more egg-like
>chickens and chicken-like eggs until the question of which came
>first seems unimportant.
>

Sounds  more like car-sickness than anything else. I still don't see
what there is valuable in  "the dialectic" that is not present in standard
common sense and rational thought. It appears to my as if you are
mystifying something rather elementary and straightforward. And it appears
to me that if you removed the mystification from EGB, youo would have
a rather slim volume.



