For us Chinese, logical thinking is more important. Because dialectical thinking is what we are good at and tired of playing with.

Dialectical thinking. We can't help but overplay our hand.

Dialectical thinking is to analyze and solve problems from the perspective of the overall development of things in a flexible and adaptive manner. The classics of Chinese culture are almost all treasures of dialectical thinking.

Confucianism has a medieval philosophy centered on "nothing but nothing". Taoism has a magnificent interpretation centered on the natural philosophy of "nothing but nothing". Buddhism has the philosophy of color and emptiness as the core of the philosophy of "nothing but nothing".

Psychology has the cognitive philosophy of "unity of knowledge and action" as the core of meticulousness. In military science, there are brilliant examples of warfare centered on the philosophy of trickery, which is "to confuse the false with the true".

Idioms dictionary, more than 40,000, up and down five thousand years of dialectical thinking accumulation, abound, the world's library is unique.

Dialectical thinking for strategy or "reticence" and logical thinking for tactics or "pragmatism", in particular, affect the general direction of national development.

It is precisely because of the reticence: the Chinese are too smart, and because of the lack of pragmatic tools, especially in terms of science and technology in the first three centuries, that smartness has gone astray and we are lagging behind.

Logical thinking. We've barely flunked so far.

Seriously, even in the design of the primary and secondary school curriculum, we still do not have formal logic as a compulsory subject. In contrast, the United Kingdom, which is a scientific powerhouse, has logic as one of the seven main subjects in elementary school.

Although in middle school plane geometry has a logical common sense approach involving propositions, this is just a last resort, otherwise geometry can't be taught.

Why is there the "Joseph Lee problem" and the "failure of China to produce scientific giants"? In my opinion, it is mainly due to the lack of logic education.

There is no shortage of wise scholars who have long since taught themselves formal logic, and there are also MBAs and law schools that have to take a logic test, but this is a very small minority.

Is it hard to think logically? Not at all! It's just that Chinese people don't like to talk about the rules of thinking, and have long been accustomed to doing whatever they want.

What is logical thinking? In short, logical thinking is a series of logical operations using precisely defined concepts as the basic tools for division, judgment, proposition, inference, deduction, proof, and falsification.

What are the laws of logic? In short, to ensure reliable thinking, you must ensure that the concepts used conform to the Law of Identity, the Law of Neutrality, the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Sufficient Reason.

To be homogeneous means to ensure that the concept used must be the one that was originally defined. There can be no swapping of concepts, i.e., there can be no vicious circle of concepts. For example, "a white horse is not a horse" is a stolen concept.

The law of exclusion is to ensure that propositions or judgments, cannot be ambiguous, ambiguous, or both yes and no. Otherwise it can have disastrous consequences for subsequent deductions.

For example, the latest revelation that the main reason why Boeing 737s often crash is that it is mandatory to have sensors automatically adjusting the airplane's angle of approach, while depriving the pilot of taking over the controls, and designer-wise sensors are not absolutely reliable.

The law of non-contradiction, which emphasizes that all logical operations must not contradict either any scientific principle or one's own presuppositions or premises. In other words, no going out on a limb.

The Law of Sufficient Reason emphasizes that the proof of a proposition must ensure that it satisfies both the necessary conditions, which are at least theoretically sound, i.e., the rationale, and the sufficient conditions, which must be sufficiently substantiated in practice, with no or no counter-examples, i.e., the illustrations.

Logical thinking, the basis of scientific and technical thinking

Mathematical thinking, a methodology based on logical thinking. Mathematical concepts, classifications, propositions, reasoning, and proofs, all based on logical thinking, abound and abound. Mathematics is the queen of the natural sciences, and logic is in the DNA of mathematical thinking.

Physical thinking, a methodology based on logical thinking. The definition of physical concepts is the soul of scientific research. For example, the definition of the essential nature of time, space, photons, gravity, electromagnetic fields, etc., is still not finished and still on the way.

Technical thinking, while using physical principles and mathematical tools, still independently requires logical thinking, and every technical term must be strictly defined and even incorporated into standardized documents.

The ability to think logically is the most basic judgment criterion for examining a scientific person and a technical person. To see whether he has strong logical power is to see his basic skills in a series of logical operations such as definition-categorization-judgment-proof-falsification.

Stop here. New Horizons in Physics discusses with you the difficult problems related to Chinese-English bilingualism at the forefront of physics.

Dialectical thinking is debating to prove that the argument you are making is correct and to disprove the other side's argument.

Logical thinking is the regularity of thinking. Logic is the science of the forms and laws of thinking.

It follows that dialectical thinking is superior. Dialectical thinking can be applied, integrated with logical thinking, and put one's argument on an unbreakable footing.

Logic is dialectics and epistemology, and the three are "the same thing" or three aspects of the "same thing": as the laws of the world, it is dialectics and worldview; as the laws of thought, it is logic; and as the historical sum and conclusion of the knowledge of the world, it is epistemology. As the sum and conclusion of the history of the world, it is epistemology.

In Marxist philosophy, logic (the laws of thought, the dialectic of thinking) is the same thing as the objective dialectic and the dialectic of the development of understanding. The idea that Marxist philosophy is a worldview and a methodology and an epistemology is one and the same thing. This idea suggests that it is one-sided and wrong to stay only in the general understanding and appreciation of the worldview and not to go further into the study and mastery of methodology and epistemology; on the other hand, to talk about methodology and epistemology apart from the question of the worldview is equally wrong and even harmful.

Engels has clearly stated that "Discursive logic, in contrast to the old pure logic, does not, like the latter, content itself with enumerating and arranging in an unrelated manner the various forms of the movement of thought, that is to say, the different forms of judgment and reasoning. On the contrary, discursive logic introduces these forms from one to the other, and does not list them flatly against each other, but makes them subordinate to each other, and develops the higher forms from the lower ones." Discursive logic studies the dialectic of the movement of thought, so the logic of Marxist philosophy is also discursive.

Discursive thinking and logical thinking is the same but different names, are foreign cultural invasion, so that the traditional Chinese culture messed up, two thinking, is a traditional culture of a letter word, the latter added a Department of the word. Or a chaste word. All the written language, physical action is a variety of office logic thinking. The philosophy of stripping away intuition to find objective facts. It's all about peeling away the disguise to find the true picture, the methodology of direction. There are a lot of nouns and allusions of this kind. For example, the evil one is the first to complain, the liar who lies, the more he describes the darker he gets, the beautiful lie, one tendency hides another tendency. Good and evil have the same origin, love and hate have the same origin but different names, intrigue and conspiracy, regicide and usurpation, collusion and adultery against one's own family. These are all out of the proximity of the heart, or those who are in a position to approach. Outsiders are not inserted. To find out the cause and effect, there is a fruit there, to find out the motive of the cause of the true picture of the truth is for the same purpose, to make a judgment to return the world to a clean slate. The Bible is a man died by God to make the judgment, can be seen in the world of dialectical thinking and logical thinking is also quite difficult, because there will always be some kinds of viewpoints are difficult to be just and true. These are just a few of the aspects of dialectical and logical thinking. The list of available aspects is endless.

To be clear, it's a methodology for doing basic research for a trial, finalizing a case, finalizing a draft, or finalizing a program, a policy.'

Dialectical thinking: refers to seeing things in their entirety, from the point of view of things

development of itself to observe it, to judge it, not to

To go to extremes and look at everything objectively and dialectically

People and things. It's more fair to not jump to one-sided conclusions.

Logical thinking: refers to the process of human cognition with the help of a generalized

A way of thinking, to reason, to judge.

It is perhaps more abstract and less graphically concrete. It may be more abstract and less tangible.

to also call it abstract thinking.

The latter is a bit higher. I don't know if you are satisfied with this answer.

I think logical thinking is higher, logical thinking in the medical point of view is a talent, most people think that superstition, that indeed it is difficult to say clearly, medical science that the complexity of the composition of the bone body, logical thinking is relatively high, dialectical thinking is just like a tribute in the production of a feeling of a special bull's-eye, do not understand logical thinking, relying solely on dialectical thinking to do small business can be, on the general direction of the mastery of not.

Dialectical thinking should also be logic. Matthieu presented dialectics as logic and made the analogy that if formal logic is elementary mathematics, then dialectics is higher mathematics. And Hegel, the founder of dialectics, put forward dialectics as logic. The dialectical thinking of yin and yang is more respected in traditional Chinese culture, together with the education of Ma Zhe. Many Chinese people are familiar with dialectics but not with the so-called formal logic. Here is the relationship between dialectics and formal logic.

Dialectics has three major laws, the unity of opposites, the reciprocal change of quality and the negation of negation. Among them, the unity of opposites is the core, the quality of mutual change is the process, and the negation of the negation is the step. The law of unity of opposites says to look at the problem comprehensively, to take into account both sides of the conflict, the so-called know yourself and know the enemy will not be in danger. The law of unity of opposites says that we should look at the problem comprehensively and take into account both sides of the conflict. Negation of negation is more difficult to understand, roughly speaking, the analysis of the problem should be repeatedly summarized, decomposed, and summarized again. Deming ring is a specific application of dialectics, that is, to do things repeatedly to set plans and goals, implementation plans, check the results, amend the program.

(A little digression. Hegel thought that there was dialectical thinking in Eastern philosophy, but it was rather simple and naive. To say so will probably hit a nerve with some people, the yin and yang of Zhouyi, the presence or absence of the Tao Te Ching, and the mediocrity of the Analects of Confucius are all stuck on the law of the unity of opposites, and there is little insight into the reciprocal change of mass and the negation of negation, so it is no wonder that Hegel would be so complacent.)

Formal logic also has three laws, the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of exclusion. These three laws are not directly related to the three laws of dialectics. The law of identity says that when analyzing a problem, the concepts of the argument and the thesis should be consistent and not off-topic. The law of contradiction says that arguments must not contradict each other. The law of platitude says that arguments should be clear and unambiguous one is one and two is two, not ambiguous and overlapping with each other. A specific application of formal logic is the MECE principle, or Mutually Independent Completely Exhaustive. This is one of the McKenzie sets.

Enough padding to get to the point! In formal logic contradictions are opposites, which are specifically manifested as true and false. Dialectics, on the other hand, points out that truth and falsehood can be united, according to which people have established three-valued logic, adding empty space on top of truth and falsehood, formally realizing the unity of opposites. From this example, we can see the significance of dialectics in guiding formal logic. In addition, each step of the Deming Ring described above uses MECE principles to analyze the problem to solve it. It can be seen that dialectic provides the guidelines and steps to solve the problem, while logic provides the specific methods to solve the problem. Dialectics is the outline, logic is the eye, and the outline is the eye.

"Which is superior, dialectical thinking or logical thinking"? The question itself is conceptually unclear and confusing.

What is logic? The term logic usually includes three meanings:a. A science that studies the norms and guidelines for the validity of thought and argument, i.e., formal logic. b. The laws of thinking. c. Objective regularity.

It is its second denotation that we use when exploring the activity of thought and cognition (thinking), thei.e., the laws of thinking。

Dialectical logic and formal logic are both laws of thought. Say."Dialectical thinking" can only be dialectical logical thinking. Within the scope of dialectical logical thinking is of course included formal logicThe same is true for the "logical mind". We cannot add a so-called "logical thinking" to "dialectical (logical) thinking". How does it make sense to compare "which is superior"?

Dialectical logic and formal logic are both laws of thought, never dialectical logic to the exclusion of formal logic, or dialectical logic without formal logic. To summarize.Dialectical logic focuses on the study of dynamic thinking, cognitive movements and their laws of development; whereas formal logic only studies the accuracy, clarity, non-contradiction and consistency of thought itself in terms of the form of thought... Formal logic does not study the question of how forms of thought correctly reflect the movement, change and development of objective reality.

The dialectical law of thinking (logic) we usually speak of refers to Marxist materialistic dialectics, i.e., Marxist philosophy. Chairman Mao's philosophical works such as The Theory of Contradiction and The Theory of Practice are theoretical doctrines of Marxist materialistic dialectics. (End)

Dialectical thinking is logical thinking.

Dialectical thinking is empirical thinking, is the kind of things have two sides, all things are mutually exclusive thinking, in this set of thinking, for example, water grams fire, which is conclusive, if someone asks, why does water grams fire? Dialectical thinking will not be able to answer, in reality, water is not necessarily able to overcome the fire, oil irrigation fire with water is not extinguished, in the face of such facts, dialectical thinking can not be explained. I use this example to show one thing, dialectical thinking is a largely similar empirical thinking, is the summary of experience, belongs to the thinking of knowing what is true and not knowing what is not true. I continue to use the example of water to illustrate the logical thinking, when it is found that the water can not be oil irrigation fire, logical thinking will naturally think of why the water can not be such a fire, to answer this question, it is necessary to continue in-depth study, as long as the study, it will immediately be found that the use of water to the fire of this set of empirical theories can not be studied at all, so this set of theories naturally abandoned, after fumbling to find that only the Logical reasoning to go deeper into the study down, the results of the study down, what is water, what is fire, why water can be grams of this kind of fire, why water can not be the kind of fire, all of these issues have been explained.