What is Dialectic?

Some remarks on Popper’s criticism
Berry Groisman Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Uni ersity of !am"rid#e, !am"rid#e !B$ %WA, U& "#'()*cam+ac+,k

&arl Popper famo,sly opposed Mar-ism in #eneral and its philosophical core . the Mar-ist dialectic . in partic,lar+ As a pro#ressi e thinker, Popper sa/ in dialectic a so,rce of do#matism dama#in# to philosophy and political theory+ Popper had s,mmari0ed his ie/s on dialectic in an article that /as first deli ered in 12$3 and s,"se4,ently rep,"lished as a chapter of his "ook 5'%%', pp+ 61276819, /here he acc,ses Mar-ist dialecticians of not toleratin# criticism+ :ronically, Popper’s ie/ that all Mar-ist dialecticians do#matically dismiss any criticism of dialectic "y claimin# that their opponents do not ,nderstand dialectic makes his position no less do#matic+ :ndeed, any attempt to criticise Popper’s ie/s on dialectics /o,ld "e seen only as an additional e-ample of responses "y ;do#matic dialecticians<, makin# his theory essentially imm,ne+ This completely pre ents dialecticians from "ein# a"le to criticise Popper’s ie/s+ This is e-actly the opposite of /hat the #reat philosopher /anted+ Therefore, for the sake of ;anti7 do#matic science< it is desira"le and e en necessary to defend dialectic+ :n this /ork : address se eral central points a"o,t Popper’s criticism of Mar-ist 5materialist9 dialectic+ :n partic,lar, : 5a9 analyse Popper’s definition of dialectic as the dialectic triad 5thesis, anti7thesis, synthesis9 and contrast it /ith a notion of dialectic as a m,ch more comple- concept /hich occ,rs in dialectical materialism today, /here the triad represents only one of the aspects= 5"9 compare dialectic /ith the trial and error method= 5c9 disc,ss the place of dialectic amon#st alid scientific methods> Does dialectic accept lo#ical contradictions= 5e9 disc,ss lessons dialecticians sho,ld learn from Popper’s criticism+ : /ill test my ar#,ments as to their constr,cti eness and /ill demonstrate e-plicitly the nat,re of my disa#reement /ith Popper 7 there"y tryin# to a oid the ;do#matic dialecticians< response as m,ch as possi"le+ Progressive, anti-dogmatic science is critical – criticism is its very life. Karl Popper

:+ :ntrod,ction> Popper and dialectic today
Today+ the alidity of many Popper?s ideas and claims are some/hat contro ersial+ @o/e er, they are more rele ant than e er+ Aethinkin# Popper means reassessin# his ideas in the present day conte-t+ D,rin# the last decade of his life, Popper had a chance to enBoy an apparent ref,tation of the comm,nist ideolo#y+ The collapse of the So iet Union /as met /ith e,phoria and /as accompanied "y an e-pectation that the /orld /ill "ecome a "etter place+ Cet, today /e reali0e that #lo"al political and social dynamics is 1

process ontology.m. science of comple.r ie/ of dialectic and its s.tations of the comm. rather.ch more complicated+ :deolo#ies are e-ploited "y political re#imes> and so the Stalinist terror and collapse of the So iet "lock cannot "e accepted as ref. and the fi#ht for infl.nderstand dialectic makes his position no less do#matic+ :f.sed Mar-ists of do#matism+ :ronically.pport for the o erthro/ of the elected socialist coalition of Sal ador Allende in !hile in 123$ and its replacement "y the military dictatorship of General Pinochet is no different.s.ch a frame/ork+ :t /as de eloped.nist dream any more than the crimes of the :n4. it /o.ppression of Ale-ander D.rces /ere a real force "ehind "oth these actions and the colo.isition can "e accepted as a ref.dies on emergence. especially in the So iet tradition.nism+ @o/e er. etc+ :t /o. po/er and reso. non7linear phenomena.rpose of this /ork is "y addressin# the Popper?s ori#inal 12$3 criti4. the idea of comm. reassess o.r of the ideolo#ical .ate philosophical frame/ork and methodolo#y. implies comm.ld "e interestin# to analyse the connections "et/een modern dialectical approach and rele ant on7#oin# st. in its essence. Popper’s remark of ho/ Mar-ist dialecticians dismiss any criticism of dialectic "y claimin# that their opponents do not .m"rella did not really matter after all+ Eot/ithstandin# the a"o e.adapti e systems.tation of the e-istence of God+ Today /e also .s on the applica"ility of the methodolo#ical aspects of the dialectical approach to philosophy of science+ ::+ Dialectic and do#matism Popper acc.estion of the #eneral applica"ility of the dialectical approach to all processes in the /orld in this article+ @ere : foc.nch a personal attack on Popper no/. etc+ needs an ade4. as an incredi"ly systematic philosophical system+ This system certainly deser es ery deep . nor to disc. as a philosophical system.rin# his life+ My aim is. that the reha"ilitation of dialectic is a ery important task+ Modern science .ita"ility as a alid philosophical and scientific approach today+ : am con inced.nfair predicament lie already in Popper?s 12$3 article+ The p. /hich is still a"sent today+ And dialectical materialism deser es attention as a serio."Dek?s li"eral reforms+ The paranoid fear of alternati e /orld ie/s.s in this article to address the 4.s potential candidate for s. for e-ample. self7 or#anisation.ld "e stressed.nist /as associated /ith Stalinism and totalitarianism in #eneral and therefore discredited= and dialectical materialism /as discredited to#ether /ith it+ :t sho. from the 12(2 So iet in asion of !0echoslo akia and s. that nothin# in dialectical materialism.e to reassess the notion and the place of the dialectical approach in today?s philosophy+ My aim is neither to la.nderstand that the idea of democracy /as and is e-ploited+ The US inter ention and s. thirteen years after his death. the notion of dialectic has "een politicised to s. one /as ' .n"iased analysis+ Th.ss the state of the dialectical approach d.ence.ch an e-tent that no/ defendin# dialectic is associated /ith "ein# an enemy of freedom and democracy+ The roots of this sad .ld "e too am"itio.

de+ Altho. dialectics is a "ay of thinking that brings into focus the full range of changes and interactions that occur in the "orld.ch aspects of dialectic.ment is fla/ed+ Any s. proves nothing. cannot "e directed to dialectic per se+ Th. ho/ can one defend a ie/ if not "y tryin# to demonstrate /here the opponents ar#.m"er of them /o.ch attempt /o.lar ar#. "ith their opposite and contradictory sides in unity. :::+ Dialectic and dialectic triad Popper #i es the follo/in# definition of dialectic 5Popper.#h.nt s. '%%'.ld arise if Popper.ch and s. Popper /o. p+ 6'19> Dialectic +++ is a theory "hich maintains that something – for instance. is it? This is e-actly the opposite of Popper?s critical attit. explains nothing. nor does it provide a formula that enables us to prove or predict anything. "y no means the definition of dialectic as materialist dialecticians see it today+ Dialectics is the method of reasoning "hich aims to understand things concretely in all their movement.late of in ariance of the speed of li#ht+ Most physicists /o. change and interconnection.rse a#ree that there mi#ht "e dialecticians /ith a do#matic ie/.ncritical. !ather.se it does not take into acco.ld also "e mentioned that there are Mar-ists /ho ha e adopted an anti7 do#matic position. and do not /ish to defend them.ld acc. anti-thesis. for e-ample.cti e+ :t does not add anythin# to the content of the ar#. attacked the theory of relati ity "y dismissin# the post. ho/e er.ld "e dismissed on the #ro. /hich criticises them. that aspect of Popper?s criticism is not constr. Hon7line Incyclopaedia of Mar-ismJ Kollo/in# In#els 5126(9 the modern materialist dialectic is associated /ith the follo/in# la/s > $ . like the modern theoretician of Mar-ism.claimin# that a partic.s.ment+ A similar sit. "eca. nor is it the motor force of history. Bertell Gllman 5'%%$9 Dialectics is not a rock-ribbed triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that serves as an all-purpose explanation.ld like to stress that Popper?s remark.rely not+ :t sho.ld not accept his claim and perhaps a n. he dialectic.se Popper of not . : /o. as such. predicts nothing and causes nothing to happen.ation /o. This is.ment of Popper is incorrect. human thought – develops in a "ay characterised by the so-called dialectic triad# thesis.ld acc.nds of do#matism+ Fery . : of co.nderstandin# relati ity+ Does it make the theory of relati ity do#matic? S. synthesis.se one in do#matism+ This completely pre ents dialecticians from "ein# a"le to criticise Popper’s ie/s+ :ndeed.

the concept of dialectics as a theory of de elopment is cr. ha e #ained #eneral reco#nition+ The topic of de elopment is directly rele ant to the ar#. development $%ntroduction to Philosophy.#h dialectics satisfactorily descri"es some de elopments.ni ersal /ay in /hich h. and compares it /ith dialectic 5D9+ Accordin# to Popper. Popper.Diamat< 7 5Grlo .ed in Anti7DMhrin# and in Dialectics of Eat."Bect to contro ersy amon#st dialecticians from different schools.type of connections . /hen theories of comple.ctionism in philosophy of science+ Th. as In#els ar#.ni ersal applica"ility of this la/ is s.#h.#h the eyes of dialectic+ :F+ Trial and Irror Method 5TNI9 ers.antity into 4.re are dialectical. p.pport the ie/ that all processes of de elopment in nat.dy thin#s in their o/n "ein# and mo ement ia the connection of opposites+ Materialist dialectic is a st. social and physical sciences. identifies dialectic only /ith one of its aspects. the la" of the negation of the negation.r scenarios+ a9 When the Thesis and the Antithesis do not lead to a Synthesis+ :nstead. e+#+ syner#etics. 1221. and the most comple.rs.cial in the ne-t section. pp+ $'(739+ The aim of dialectic is to st. remains "eyond the scope of the present article+ What these e-amples o. dialectical approaches.systems and processes in "iolo#y.#h applica"le in some sit.types of connections. and de elopment is a central concept of dialectic+ St.lar occ. &)*++ Th. e+#+ interplay of opposites.t development.pports his claim "y fo. it is not consistent /ith others= and he s. tho.ndamental in dialectical methodolo#y.estion.dy of connections.#h f. it is a"le to #rasp comple.s.t that the e-amples in the follo/in# sections are not #i en to s.s.##le of opposites9 The la/ of the transformation of 4.ment "et/een emer#ence and red. one of them is simply eliminated+ 6 . therefore. is that the de elopment of o.re+ This 4.ality and ice ersa The la/ of ne#ation of the ne#ation What Popper refers to appears to "e the last la/ .   La/s of Dialectic The la/ of interpenetration of opposites 5. tho.t the physical phenomena descri"ed in these e-amples can only make sense if analysed thro.r scientific ideas and hypotheses a"o.man tho. so altho. &'('. especially in the So iet tradition of Dialectical Materialism 7 . do not hold in #eneral. lea in# all others aside+ This fact is ery important since the .dyin# de elopment in its #eneral terms "ecomes more and more important and rele ant today.nity and str. tho.#ht sho/. materialist dialectic is a theory a"o.#ht in #eneral and scientific de elopment in partic. /here /e compare dialectic and the trial and error method+ :t is essential to point o.s Dialectic 5D9+ Popper presents the trial and error method 5TNI9 as a .ations.

there is a section de oted to the iss.tes associated to it> :ncl. Popper completely misinterprets dialectic and acc. and sometimes the Antithesis is not prod.nt for that+ c9 The Thesis does not prod. p+6'69 : /o.st a constr.se Synthesis is not B.ilt merely of material s. 1 O.r "ack#ro. therefore dialectic is opposed to formal logic+ :t sho. that ref.in science.pplied "y Thesis and Antithesis and preser in# the "est parts of "oth+ :f /ill contain some entirely ne/ idea+ he dialectical interpretation. a thesis does not eliminate it or erase it.alitati ely ne/+ 8 . : reach concl. even "here it may be applicable. dialectic is dan#ero.sion9 of contradiction<+ And since acceptin# contradictions /ill r. it is not simply a constr.ce the Antithesis+ Aather o.nts for emer#ence of a 4.sniko a has pointed o. 5Popper.cial point 7 Popper?s core ar#.0ana Par.nd kno/led#e+ Altho.ces the Antithesis.ations descri"ed in a9.de prod.ced. say.nt for de elopment+ F+ Dialectic ers.ced at all+ d9 :n the case /hen the Synthesis is prod.ted lea es an imprint on o. therefore TNI has /ider application than D /hich does not acco. "ill hardly ever help to develop thought by its suggestion that a synthesis should be constructed out of the ideas contained in a thesis and an antithesis.ction from the material s. de elopment is an essential part of the dialectical approach /ith all attri".t.re Hfor e-ample.din# completely ne/ content that emer#es as a res.la/ of 5e-cl.lt of a de elopment+ Th."9 Many independent theses can "e offered. this point deser es farther consideration it is not clear at this sta#e /hether it acco.ment a#ainst the dialectical method in science+ Accordin# to Popper.s.s Kormal Lo#ic Eo/ /e arri e at a cr.cial one+ As /e ha e already seen in Section ::.s.e in :ntrod. d9. '%%'.r critical attit. "9 and c9 do not promote de elopment+ They descri"e chan#es /hich are not associated /ith de elopment+ Eothin# ne/ emer#es . all /as contained already in the thesis or the antithesis 1+ Th.ld like to start from the last point. since it is the most cr. the sit.ses it of not being exactly "hat it is+ Dialectical interpretation does promote de elopment precisely "eca.ld "e noted that the topic of the relationship "et/een formal lo#ic and dialectic /as often addressed in the So iet Diamat literat. it iolates the .#h.ction ". dialectic accepts contradictions.s+ !ontradictions for Popper are lo#ical contradictions. so to speak+ The ery fact of it "ein# ref.ction to Philosophy 512)2.pplied "y Thesis and Antithesis+ Kor the same ery reason.sions radically different to Popper?s+ Trial and Irror method and dialectical approach do not compete= for those aspects of the Trial and Irror method /hich are not shared "y Dialectic cannot acco.tation of.

if you ignore the "ays things are connected-if you ignore. As a res. it asserts that they "oth cannot "e tr. '%%$. it distin#.ek is tall. are normally too a#.o. he la" of excluded middle similarly comes into 2uestion# -either ek is tall or he is not.sed in its traditional Mar-ists meanin#+ ( .pply /ith . the formal lo#ic itself is empty of content+ When it deals.nam"i#. correspondin# to ri al scientific hypotheses. the topic of vagueness /as e-tensi ely st. 0or a start.died Hsee. chapter :::9+ @ere : s. %t seems that the unclarity about "hether he is tall is not merely epistemic. for e-ample &eefe and Smith 512239J+ &eefe and Smith /rite 51223. being neither true nor false. and therefore contradictions mentioned a"o e sho.you "ill reach "rong conclusions. those connections of things "hich lead to an existing state of affairs generating its o"n -negation. no amount of further information about his exact height $and the heights of others+ could help us decide "hether he is tall. 1nd arguably this indeterminacy amounts to the sentence . p+ )(9> .e+ B.ld "e re#arded as contradictions "et/een ri al scientific hypotheses+ Kormal lo#ic st. lo#ical incompati"ility of propositions.mmarise the key claims> a9 Dialectic does not s. /ith t/o propositions A and PA.rice !ornforth 51233.##est that the la/s of formal lo#ic can "e "roken or set aside+ "9 Dialectic is not opposed to lo#ic> rather. p+ 119+ The main o"Bection a#ainst Popper?s concl. and also scientific hypotheses.e and those that are false+ @o/e er. Plausibly.s semantic content9.dies and classifies statements and propositions+ :n partic.se dialectic treats thin#s in their interconnections7the idea can "e "est e-pressed in !ornforth?s o/n /ords 51233. hat unfortunate result "ill not then be due to your respect for formal logic.sion /as systemati0ed and p.ishes "et/een those proposition that are tr.lt. p+'9 /uppose ek is borderline tall. "hich violates the classical principle of bivalence.t formal lo#ic is hitherto "est de eloped for non-vague sentences and propositions 5/hich it can s. but to your disrespect for real connections.t for/ard "y Ma. . /hereas e eryday propositions. seems untrue. it is opposed to metaphysics'+ c9 Ee#ation 5antithesis9 is not in lo#ical contradiction /ith the thesis.tside of formal lo#ic+ ' @ere the term ?metaphysics? is . it is indeterminate "hether ek is tall. "eca.f course.e to fit into this type+ :ndeed. say.lar. there is no fact of the matter here about "hich "e are ignorant# rather.p+1819 titled . has to "e set o.Dialectic and lo#ical contradictions<J as /ell as in Western Mar-ist /ritin#s 5Gllman. :n this article /e speciali0e in philosophy of science. say.

rface of the Iarth the meanin# of attri".t of the /indo/ and tell .s.tin# the property of shinin# to the S.mmari0ed "y Gllman?s 5'%%$9 he common sense notion of contradiction is that it applies to ideas about things and not to things themselves.iry /e ac4. this is an ill. and sho. that it is a logical relation bet"een propositions $3%f % claim 45.t s. and not a real relation existing in the "orld.n is shinin# no/ or not+ Fery soon /e /ill disco er that the S.ter space.ct of the process of the in4.t the real /orld its ery content depends on o.n has a spacialQ#eo#raphical and temporal aspects+ We can #o o.r disc.hn and Popper here in order not to dra/ a/ay o. a"o.p9 ask to look o.r friend aro. formal lo#ic deals /ith notions or aspects of thin#s a"stracted from the real thin#s themsel es+ Th. Amsterdam.st not "e a"stractedQdetached from the real o"Bect or the process. /e are misled "y formal lin#. S. these t/o proposition are e idently contradictory+ @o/e er.rpose of o.is not<+ We can ill.si e.ired a lot of ne/ $ :t is /ell kno/ that the socio7c.t it makes the point+ We started from t/o simple hypotheses a"o. ".n started to shine.r ie/s on the pro"lem and so on$+ :ts content is.n shinin# /hen and /here it is shinin# for us+ We /ill find o.r in4.re+ This toy e-ample is tri ial.The fallacy in Popper?s approach consists of loadin# t/o propositionsQscientific hypotheses /ith a certain content a priori. /hen /e consider a hypothesis.s /ork+ : do not #o into the disa#reement "et/een &. London. or indeed any proposition 7 in isolation from each other and from the process of o. on other hypotheses. it leads to a formal co.is< and .n?s shinin# has a s. ".is< and .s.r e eryday sense of S. Klorence.s as o"ser ers at the s.r in4.nd the /orld and 5after apolo#i0in# to some of them for /akin# them .metaphysical<9 mistake to think of hypotheses .hn is his famo.lt. ".t in the process of o.iry+ When Popper thinks of thin#s 5scientific hypotheses9 and their properties in isolation from each other.ct a simple Gedankene-periment+ We /ill phone o. i+e+ emit radiation into the o.istic co. :n other /ords.nter7posin# of . on the history of o.s arri in# at a concl.t to space /here /e /ill disco er that o. !airo.sion that any attempt to reconcile "et/een the t/o in the form of synthesis /ill accept lo#ical contradiction+ This idea perhaps /as "est s.ld not fall into+ Let . /e /ill reali0e that for . in as sense.r in4.lly /ill do so in the foreseea"le f.t.ld not "e schemati0ed.ssion it is eno.lar hypotheses m. etc+ Th.t it is also not shinin# in Tokyo.s it is a 5.s /hether the s. Sidney. there"y fillin# it /ith a priori content+ 3 .s cond. and th.sion .iry itself+ And th.nshine.#h to say that a partic. e en a most simple one. a prod.iry.is not<+ This is e-actly the trap /e sho.t that o"Becti ely S. and hopef.nter7posin# of .strate it /ith Popper?s o/n simple e-ample (Thesis) The sun is shining now (Anti-thesis) The sun is not shining now At first si#ht.r attention from the main point+ Kor the p."Becti e aspect . there"y assertin# that the t/o are lo#ically e-cl. &ie .4 % can4t at the same time claim 4not 54 3+.ral7historical aspects of the scientific pro#ress /ere e-tensi ely ela"orated "y Thomas &.n is shinin# in Madrid.

lt of o.si e+ Gf co.n cannot "oth shine and not shine in the partic.dy /ill "e that oxygen is a gas under certain normal conditions of temperature and pressure.lar place at a partic.eness and sharpen scientific concepts "y reconcilin# thesis and antithesis+ ) .r kno/led#e has de eloped into a ne/ sta#e+ Th.rse they areR B. t19. i+e+ it has spatio7temporal characteristics .ally e-cl.t.n alone 5independent of its o"ser ation9 or as a characteristic of an o"ser er?s e-perience.nimportant in this sense+ Gne mi#ht "e satisfied "y the a"o e e-ample.e+ We kne/ all alon# that the S.content+ We learned that s. abo#e the $ar%et &'uare (Anti-thesis) The sun is not shining in Cambridge.sion that oxygen can be a li2uid is o.ation+ We are chemists. /e /ill B.ted to the S.ll of a ne/ content that /as not in the ori#inal propositions "efore+ We mi#ht say that o.t not shine at 5-'. abo#e the $ar%et &'uare These t/o s. called ."Bect o-y#en to ario.s points of space and time.ce a#.pports an interestin# assertion that real scientific pro#ress depends on vagueness and that formal lo#ic is scientifically .o-y#en<.st assert /hich one is tr.ite simple. ".s 5Thesis9 G-y#en is a #as 5Anti7thesis9 G-y#en is a li4.s.st ref."stance. the ori#inal propositions are not in lo#ical contradiction at all+ Gne mi#ht /onder. ". namely oxygen is not a li2uid. considers concepts of #as and li4.n mi#ht shine at 5-1.id are in lo#ical contradiction if one i#nores o-y#en as somethin# that can "e in process of chan#e. yet more .te either one or the other+ Kormal lo#ic /ill "e sa ed+ @o/e er.s ima#ine the follo/in# hypothetical sit. and in o. 1!"10"0!.r thesis+ We immediately arri e at its ne#ati e ersion. o-y#en can "e a #as after all+ Th.ced .#h. the S. i#nore their interconnection+ This e-ample demonstrates ho/ scientists red.scientific< e-ample Hsee !ornforth 5p+ 2(9J+ Let .lar time+ The a"o e e-ample s. still 4. it differs at ario. England at 1:30 pm on Wednesda .ss the follo/in#. at 1:30 pm on Wednesda .sions are f.rely are m.t : feel it necessary to disc. t'9+ These concl.t /hich /e do not kno/ anythin# yet+ We are #oin# to test a scientific hypothesis that oxygen is a gas+ This is o. ho/ : /ill cope /ith the follo/in# e-ample (Thesis) The sun is shining in Cambridge.id in isolation. no ne/ content /ill "e prod.r la"oratory /e ha e a test7t.nder certain conditions it does "ecome a li4.r antithesis or ne#ation+ The res.r st."e /ith ne/ly disco ered s. England. 1!"10"0!.iry here then /e /ill B. We s. a"o.nshine can "e interpreted as a property attri". This is the synthesis or ne#ation of the ne#ation .ct a similar in4.t if /e cond.id+ This concl. tho.s tests and soon disco er that .

t the corp. physicists arri ed at the no el concept of "ave-particle duality+ The additional po/erf. .t not contrary 5i+e+ m.m o"Bect can "e attri".an o"Bect is a /a e< and . namely .t. They are contradictions in the operational sense+ They are contrasti e sides or aspects of one real o"Bect or thin# 6.t the /orld imposed ri#id restrictions on properties classical o"Bects can possess+ :n partic. formal lo#ic and dialectic "elon# to the different domains and m.m mechanics.ted to an o"Bect d.t the nat. e+#+ milk is /hite and is 5at room temperat. so to speak.re of li#ht and is #oin# to test them in the la"oratory.ld ref. o" io. ".e to the predicati e tension.ssion a"o. for e-ample.an o"Bect is a particle< are not yet incompati"le+ Gne has to a"stract them from the real o"Bect to make them lo#ically incompati"le.s para#raph in that it demonstrated ho/ scientists create ne/ concepts+ Th.lar and the /a e nat. and /o. se eral contradictory properties can "e tri ially attri".rce of de elopment+ 6ut they are not logical contradictions. in the frame/ork of o.ant.t that 6 :t is important to mention that these contradictions are not of the predicative nature either+ Kormally.ssion of the relation "et/een formal lo#ic and dialectic "y the follo/in#. apparently contradictory aspects.sc. and a term dialectical logic is e en .ted a state of "ein#.r classical e-perience o.rice !ornforth ery correctly points o.si e9 in the lo#ical sense+ : /o.sc.sion that is presented in Popper?s treatment of the pro"lem+ :t implies or at least creates the impression that formal lo#ic sho.sly.m physics has pro ed this approach to "e radically /ron#+ :nstead. a classical e-ample in philosophy of science9+ Let .re He+#+ see Eo ack 512(29. dependin# on the nat.ant. Sta insky 5'%%$9J dialectic is presented as a kind of a ne" logic.ld "e replaced "y dialectic+ As : ha e ar#. inherent contradictions are seen "y dialectical materialism as the main so. the incompati"ility of the corp. not /hat dialectic means "y ?opposites?+ 2 . remark+ Sometimes in the literat.s.ld mean that e ery time a scientist considers the t/o ri al hypotheses a"o.ally e-cl.al frame/ork imposes lo#ical incompati"ility of certain hypotheses+ Th. and the property of "ein# /hite is not the property of "ein# /et+ This is.re9 /et."ein# a particle< /ith .ed here. i+e+ identify .re of the e-periment+ The history of 4.nter to the con entional formal lo#ic.st not "e treated as potential replacements of each other+ Ma.ch too restricti e+ So restricti e.ld not make any pro#ress at all+ The core pro"lem is that the scientific concept. they /o.ld ne er escape from the loop of lo#ical incompati"ility of the different. i+e+ /hen to the same 4.te one of them.ld ne er make any pro#ress to/ards one of the most incredi"le scientific theories in the history of mankind+ This e-ample differs from the one #i en in the pre io.ition a"o. and to my ie/ ery important.re of an o"Bect> any classical o"Bect can "e either a /a e or a particle+ 5The disc. she /o.lar.ant.sin# only trial7and7error method science co.s try for a moment to reason /itho.r int.re of li#ht has a lon# history and "ecame.sed to descri"e this ne/ type lo#ic+ : stron#ly oppose this ie/ e-actly for the reasons #i en in this section+ The term dialectal logic leads e-actly to the sort of conf. that in fact.not "ein# a /a e<+ Kollo/in# Popper?s TNI method /o. as a co. in t/o different locations at once+ :f physicists follo/ed Popper?s TNI scheme.t the "a##a#e of that classical frame/ork+ The t/o 5potential9 aspects of an o"Bect?s "ein# 5properties9.Eo/ /e are ready to see that the TNI scheme imposed on the de elopment of scientific theories "y Popper is m.ld like to finish my disc.lar and /a e nat. for e-ample.l e-ample is the superposition principle in 4.s.

ld learn from Popper?s criticism in the li#ht of my pre io.sniko a for all the efforts she p. the dialectical approach certainly s.ild preB.ssed the main points of Popper?s criticism of dialectic and ha e concl.ss the applica"ility of the dialectical approach to all de elopment processes in Eat.sef.s.ld "e clarified ho/ dialectic classifies and differentiates different processes and types of connections in the /orld+ Ackno/led#ements : /o.dices a#ainst it+ :n the interest of anti7do#matic science these preB.ld like to mention the main lessons that dialecticians sho.l remarks+ : am #ratef.ssion+ :t is important that theoreticians of dialectical materialism /ill do more to depoliticise it+ :n partic.nso.#ht to con ey that its application to the society and history.nately created "et/een dialectical materialism as a philosophical7scientific system and comm. the pro"lem that raised the most serio.pen Philosophy and the . A. this /ork is an attempt to reha"ilitate dialectic "y addressin# Popper?s ori#inal criticism+ And finally.cti e criticism+ Aeferences !ollier.nist ideolo#y+ The latter fo. London> La/rence and Wishart+ 8 The latter idea ori#inates primarily from In#els and /as ne er implied "y Mar.s o"Bections from Popper+ :ndeed. any form of statement "hich sets them aside becomes thereby incoherent and inconsistent? 5p+)(9+ F:+ S.lar.nd itself mis.pport+ : am #ratef.t into or#ani0in# the conference .ld like to thank O.pen /ociety. it sho.dy of modern dialectic nor to disc. $7))8+ 9arx. sho.dice sho.tterfield for ery . Mark Stanford and Die#o Aosende for helpf.l to Mark Spre ak for his comments and help+ : am thankf.ted to the link that /as .ld "e dissol ed+ Th.Aethinkin# Popper< /here : had a chance to present the ideas of this /ork for the first time+ : am #reatly inde"ted to Seremy B. G-ford> Gne/orld+ !ornforth. : /o. i+e+ historical materialism. they o.himself 5!ollier. p+ 1'89+ 1% . M+ 512339 he .l disc.0ana Par.ssions and s.l to Da id Miller and Alain Boyer for constr.re8+ The aim of this /ork /as to reassess the rele ance of Popper?s criticism of the applica"ility of the dialectical approach to the de elopment of scientific theories and scientific tho.#ht+ : ha e presented and disc.e erythin#<.?the la"s of formal logic are of absolute validity.sed "y se eral totalitarian re#imes+ Popper politici0ed dialectic helpin# to ".l to Larry Udell.mmary The aim of this /ork /as neither to present a 5"rief9 re ie/ or st.ded that it is .s disc.ed that Popper has si#nificantly contri".ffers from its apparent applica"ility to .nd+ : ar#.nfort.ld not make any e-act social predictions+ :n addition.

G+ 512(29 1n %ntroduction to the <ogic of 9arxism.eness> a reader. S+ and Smith. London> Ao. TUVWXY. A Bradford Book. :+ 5'%%$9 Philosophical !esearchers.ction to Philosophy.ature./e"+s.tled#e !lassics+ Sta insky. 12)2 5in A. Mosco/= http>QQ. !oncepts and Principles.ne# Dialectical 9aterialism. Te-t"ook for @I:. B+ 5'%%$9 Dance of the Dialectic# /teps in 9arx4s 9ethod. eds+ 512239 Fa#. F+F+ 512219 0oundations of Philosophy.perlink+netQidialectQLo#ictheory+html+ 11 . $&'8*+ Dialectic4s of .ssian9+ &eefe. Part . ZU[\]\^_Y].:ngels. 0. Z`abc> d^_Y]+ eUbVWUfU g7]Y. Pathfinder= 8th edition+ Gllman. 1221 5in A. Uni ersity of :llinois Press+ Grlo . &+ 5'%%'9 =on>ectures and !efutations# he ?ro"th of /cientific Kno"ledge. Z`abVWU` U]_`[`h What is Dialectic 110408 | Dialectic | Karl Popper

.ssian9+ Popper. P+. Part T/o> Theory and Methodolo#y> Pro"lems. The M:T Press+ Eo ack. London> La/rence and Wishart= on7line copy http>QQ///+mar-ists+or#Qarchi eQmar-Q/orksQ1))$QdonQinde-+htm+ :ntrod.