You're right willhelm. I didn't follow your advice on reading Hegel. How did you know?

As to your comment of the scientific agenda & funding. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Any real pointers or supporting facts or just a baseless accusation on the scientific body as a whole?

To get somewhat on topic:

I agree with tpq that this isn't really a problem of Hegel's dialectic. It's a metaphysical theory for philosophical and historical progress, not scientific progress (He himself called it 'speculative reason'). Furthermore, it's not even Hegel himself that elevated this dialectic; that's the work of other philosophers (Right-Hegelians & Left- or Young-Hegelians; Marx & Engels being mo...

You're right willhelm. I didn't follow your advice on reading Hegel. How did you know?

As to your comment of the scientific agenda & funding. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Any real pointers or supporting facts or just a baseless accusation on the scientific body as a whole?

To get somewhat on topic:

I agree with tpq that this isn't really a problem of Hegel's dialectic. It's a metaphysical theory for philosophical and historical progress, not scientific progress (He himself called it 'speculative reason'). Furthermore, it's not even Hegel himself that elevated this dialectic; that's the work of other philosophers (Right-Hegelians & Left- or Young-Hegelians; Marx & Engels being most widely known for their historical materialism).

And indeed, tpq is absolutely right, Hegel is one of the most difficult & and also one of the most faultly understood philosophers (the splitting of left- & right-hegelians being a simplified example of that). A big influence in western philosophy (for followers, refiners, revisers & critics alike).

But I do think this basic idea of conflict is an interesting framework nonetheless. Especially when it concerncs notions of popularized (vulgarized) science, as it is treated in media, where they try to construct a 'balanced' discussion, with the means of a black/white, pro/contra debate, no grey zone debate. No matter how marginal, far-fetched, on-the-fringe one side might be. (in casu: evolution-deniers; climate-change naysayers; ...). The problem here, is that the deniers don't have any science to support their claims.
As if the scientific body of knowledge needs some kind of antithesis (anti-science) to be able to make progress. That would be a gross misconception of what Hegel pointed out with his theory.

Calling this a problem of Hegellian dialectic might be overstating, oversimplifying and ultimately mischaracterizing it. But exactly this framework makes it an interesting concept imho.

Djiezes, my remark about you following up on Hegel's philosophy of history was just a sarcastic aside. I liked this article. very interesting and I pretty much agree with the previous comments. The area where this article rings true to me is the evident and diminishing nature of the scientific method in favor of consensus. Consensus is not science it is anti-science.

tpq62 Hegelian philosophy of history is fairly simple to understand. It can be taken to the nth degree, but I'm not trying to get all academic here. Basically, we end up somewhere between a compromise of opposing ideas. Tis leads us to a new point where another struggle leads us to another compromise of opposing ideas. This ...

Djiezes, my remark about you following up on Hegel's philosophy of history was just a sarcastic aside. I liked this article. very interesting and I pretty much agree with the previous comments. The area where this article rings true to me is the evident and diminishing nature of the scientific method in favor of consensus. Consensus is not science it is anti-science.

tpq62 Hegelian philosophy of history is fairly simple to understand. It can be taken to the nth degree, but I'm not trying to get all academic here. Basically, we end up somewhere between a compromise of opposing ideas. Tis leads us to a new point where another struggle leads us to another compromise of opposing ideas. This is very simplistic, but accurate. To use the similarity as it pertains to science does not follow, I agree 100 percent.

Djiezes
your point about Hegel presenting a theory of historical progress asopposed to a model of public or scientific discourse is an important. There is a notion of dialectic as argumentation, but that is a Greek one--greater truth coming about through the rational argumentation of opposed views. The "greater truth" (or synthesis) is not a compromise, but the result of weaknesses in the respective arguments being exposed and corrected. That idea of dialectic is firmly embedded in scientific discourse, but it has become popularly bastardised into the idea that the truth always lies somewhere in between any two opposing viewpoints, regardless of the viewpoints' relative merits. That is ...

Djiezes
your point about Hegel presenting a theory of historical progress asopposed to a model of public or scientific discourse is an important. There is a notion of dialectic as argumentation, but that is a Greek one--greater truth coming about through the rational argumentation of opposed views. The "greater truth" (or synthesis) is not a compromise, but the result of weaknesses in the respective arguments being exposed and corrected. That idea of dialectic is firmly embedded in scientific discourse, but it has become popularly bastardised into the idea that the truth always lies somewhere in between any two opposing viewpoints, regardless of the viewpoints' relative merits. That is very much a dominant idea of public discourse here in the US, and as you point out, has real consequences here for knowledge.

The whole idea of one viewpoint (the thesis), which is then opposed by a second viewpoint coming out of nowhere (the antithesis) with a resulting compromise (the synthesis)--which then becomes a thesis with the whole cycle starting again, has nothing to do with Hegel. But that idea is just stuck out there like a bad smell and won't go away. For it to be Hegelian, I think you'd have to conceive the synthesis as being constructed by the tension between the thesis and antithesis--the synthesis contains the thesis and antithesis within itself.

Anyway Swan's point is good, but it is a shame he tried to tart it up with words like "Hegelian" and "Dialectic" when he didn't need to.

No problem, I see where my phrasing is unclear. In the Fichtean formulation of thesis/antithesis/synthesis all three moments are the same kind of "thing" or category that occur in a linear chronological progression--First, THESIS, then ANTITHESIS, then SYNTHESIS. The SYNTHESIS then becomes a new THESIS, and the cycle begins again. Tick, tick, tick...But what I meant is that in dialectics the Synthesis would be the relation that constructs and is constructed by the Thesis and Antithesis. The Thesis and Antithesis would also be mutally constitutive. Everything is simultaneous.

For an example, and I am not sure how well the analogy holds up, take marriage. In Fichtean terms, let's sa...

No problem, I see where my phrasing is unclear. In the Fichtean formulation of thesis/antithesis/synthesis all three moments are the same kind of "thing" or category that occur in a linear chronological progression--First, THESIS, then ANTITHESIS, then SYNTHESIS. The SYNTHESIS then becomes a new THESIS, and the cycle begins again. Tick, tick, tick...But what I meant is that in dialectics the Synthesis would be the relation that constructs and is constructed by the Thesis and Antithesis. The Thesis and Antithesis would also be mutally constitutive. Everything is simultaneous.

For an example, and I am not sure how well the analogy holds up, take marriage. In Fichtean terms, let's say the husband is the Thesis. Then the wife would be the antithesis. The synthesis woud be little junior. Two categories in interaction producing a third equal category.

In dialectics the synthesis would be something like the relation of marriage. Within it there are the opposite and mutally constitutive categories of husband and wife (no wife, no husband and vice versa). "Husband" and "Wife" create eachother, and are created within the insitiution of marriage, and the tension and interaction between them determines the form of the marriage relation.

Hegel's famous dialectic is the Master/Slave Dialectic, but that is more of a myth/story about human self-consciousness, and I don't pretend to really understand the details.