Can anyone who is more well read tell me if there is any philosophy work that revises the theory of dialectical materialism in light of modern scientific advances? I just finished Elementary Principles of Philosophy (FLP edition) which was extremely enlightening but some of the scientific examples are dated and it got me thinking. Physics (and all sciences for that matter) has advanced quite a bit in the past fifty years and I'd love to read a principled critique/investigation/discussion on how our current understanding of nature modifies our understanding of materialism. Also if there are any critiques of idealism in the understanding of modern science

  • Mardoniush [she/her]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I'm more familiar with Biological uses (where it's a foundation of the development of punctuated equilibrium...which is less a theory than a useful frame of thinking IMO) Most Dialectic Work is in pure PhilSci, for obvious reasons.

    Before the collapse of the USSR though much work was put into showing that quantum mechanics cannot be approached via positivism and requires a dialectic approach, but I have no idea if anyone still works on this, maybe in China.

    I assume you've read most of the relevant 1st year PhilSci groundwork (Lakatos and Feyerbend, Magala, Lefebvre for various dialectic and leftist perspectives. Carnap's Philosophical Foundations of Physics and Popper/Khun for Naive Materialism and Deeply Wrong Just-So Stories respectively.)

    E. Mc Mullin is not a Marxist but (Hegelian) dialectical methods strongly influences his thinking, and the Scientific Realists more generally use something that looks an awful lot like Dialectical Materialism if you squint at it. Well worth a look.

    • Camboozie [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Thanks for the recommendations! I have not read any of those works actually, I am very new to philosophical studies having read the work mentioned above, Stalin's dialectical and historical materialism, and a mishmash of other things mostly related to the climate or politics. I have a degree in chemistry and physics though which is why I was thinking about these things. The philosophy of science is sorely lacking in university level science programs, but I doubt they would handle them well anyways.

      • Mardoniush [she/her]
        ·
        3 years ago

        One of the Unis I went to had a very good PhilSci department and all science students had to take 2 classes.

        Desperately needed since most Scientists are actually Verificationists when you ask how they work but Popper pushed Falsificationism so hard that everyone just repeats his bullshit as "What Science is".

        EDIT, if you are completely new, I recommend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science%3F

        as an intro to non-Soviet PhilSci and the basic issues. Also The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Has just about all the summary of any conceivable topic a layperson needs, with primary sources.