Let’s understand why disagreement of opinion is necessary to think. There is an area of philosophical research called dialectics. Dialectics consists of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. You build an argument about some topic, which is your thesis. But this argument could be questioned by specialists who could provide new evidence or theory. The truth is that these specialists derive their opinions from very different points of view and sometimes disagree greatly with each other about the knowledge they are supposed to have. Beyond that, our opinions are often contradictory. This disagreement of opinion is called the antithesis. And thinking about the puzzle that gave us the disagreement, we can find another answer. Therefore, to solve the problem, we are led to another view of the phenomenon. That is the synthesis.
Is that so? The fact is that the synthesis could still be unsatisfactory, for many reasons. And if you’re honest with yourself, you can’t walk away without completing the job. To get closer to reality, if you care, you must broaden your horizon to include the new findings. It doesn’t matter: you’re on a lifelong journey.
Let’s see the illustration of these steps:
1- Affirmation or thesis:…
2- But there is some objection that is…
3- Therefore, we are driven to the opinion that…
BUT this synthesis remains unsatisfactory, because…
THEREFORE, we are driven to expand our universe to include…
Now let’s imagine you’re writing about evolution. You defend, for example, the idea that blind force is responsible for evolution. This is what Aristotle taught as an internal spontaneity. This thought nullifies the biblical idea of creation by God. As a modern evolutionist, you apparently deny that the God of the Bible is the first cause. Surely, there is no place for God in evolution. To do so, you talk about primitive molecules, but you don’t try to account for how or when they came into existence.
Well, this is a mere assumption. If you claim that complexes derive from the gradual modification of earlier and simpler forms, that they are vast material universes (cosmic or organic), you deny the law of nature that nothing reproduces something larger than itself. That is a possible antithesis. Therefore, you must write a synthesis that includes an explanation about the improvement law. For example, how can you show that intelligence could not have come from one or more molecules of lack of intelligence? These are simple ideas. I hope you think about that.
