There are certainly enough situations in teaching and research in which it is appropriate not to strive for contradiction, but simply to learn to understand theoretical and practical facts, for example certain research methods and techniques. In 20th century philosophy of science, however, there is a direction that links progress in philosophy and natural science very strongly with the concept of contradiction. This is the so-called "critical rationalism" as Sir Karl R. Popper founded it. Of course, one can also recall the "dialectical" method from antiquity, but it only plays a historical role in Critical Rationalism. For a long time, empirical philosophy since Francis Bacon thought that generalization of the individual observations found could lead to general laws. Popper showed that this type of "verification" leads to mistakes, because there are too many cases that I as a researcher do not even know exist with a completely different qualtity or behavior. So if a biologist explains: "swans are white" because he lives in a country where there are only white swans and he has never heard of "black swans", which also exist - quite elsewhere - then this statement is wrong. Methodically correct procedure means trying to refute (contradict) the hypothesis that "swans are white". If the falsification of a statement succeeds through a result other than the predicted, expected result, then the previous findings must be revised and differentiated, perhaps even a completely new thesis must be formulated. Since the "truth" given by the authority of textbooks or doctrinal opinions of the lecturers is not only repeated, there is only a small increase in learning. But if I succeed in formulating a hypothesis with good reasons that questions a doctrine, then much more will change in the process of scientific knowledge, if the contradiction is succsessful. Of course, it often happens that the attempt to falsify a given scientific finding by contradiction fails. Then this is an advantage for the existing theory. It's a scientific benefit to be able to say: So far all attempts to falsify them with good arguments or empirical studies have failed because of this statement. Thus the theory has become "resilient", its truth value has proven itself. Today many theories are offered as "true" without their resilience having been sufficiently investigated.

Suppose an RG member presents a formula that unveils the "big secret" of the weekly RG score. Several people try out the formula - successfully. But critically seen, this does not mean that the formula applies to all cases. Hypotheses must therefore be formulated for cases where the formula does not yield the expected result, but rather a much different one. If one cannot enforce this "contradiction" and the actual score corresponds to the expected value, then the formula and its theoretical background is much closer to the truth than if a result completely different from the expected one occurs.

Contradiction is an act or a fact or a statement that negate or in opposite of or oppose to what someone has said or believe or that is so different from another believe or fact or statement that one of them must be wrong.

I do agree with Dr. Retter detailed comment.

It could be a French word. In French; contradiction is divided in two parts: "contra" which is "contre" in French and "diction" wich is "dire" in French . Their translation is "opposite" and "saying". The naive translation of the word is "saying the opposite". It means when two actions are in opposite direction or they Obey opposite rules.

In my opinion, on the same matter when two different and opposite views are expressed, It leads to contradiction. In research work, inconsistency in statements may result in contradiction.

Contradiction means the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from something else, so that one of them must be wrong: You say that you're good friends and yet you don't trust him. Isn't that a contradiction?

See the following link that may be helpful:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_can_be_done_with_contradictory_results_in_a_research_project

Yes. Contradictions in philosophy exist where by there are schools of thought that often opposes accepted theories and concepts.

These contradictions have given birth to the expanse and diversities in various fields of learning. Personally, contractions offer a platform for curiosity, more learning and research and ultimately results in scientific progression.

Contradiction is:

---a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another

---a situation in which inconsistent elements are present,

---the statement of a position opposite to one already made.

I can understand and support a contradiction for the sake of development, however, I cannot do the same for the sake of a pointless argument. Especially, when morality is missing.

Regards

In scientific literature contradictions are described by the concept of dissonance. The concept of dissonance became known with the theory formulated by Leon Festinger, since 1954. Dissonance is defined as the mental state of tension (individual or interpersonal) produced by two or more contradictory ideas. The theory of dissonance refers to the following aspects:

- between knowledge, opinions, beliefs, etc., there may be some contradictions, so dissonant.

- the dissonant elements may have a logical nature or a psychological, affective nature

- the state of dissonance creates a psychological discomfort that hinders the normal development of psychic activity

- when the dissonance is present, the person will try to avoid the situations and information responsible for the occurrence of the dissonance

- reducing or eliminating dissonance involves changing attitudes, opinions, behaviors, etc

Following

It means "to be in contrast, in conflict" (Merriam-Webster), antithesis, dilemma, paradox... For ex, , dichotomy is alogysm and syllogism. Besides, among 256 modi of syllogisms there are only 24 ones are right (based on the valid conclusions) . To M.Twain, "All generalizations are false, including this one". There are always exceptions to the rules (as well as restrictions to the rights). "My name is Legion, because there are a great number of us" Mark 5:9.

Contradictions increase discussions and study, when we try to reach to the truth. But when we do for our superiority. fights start.

Perhaps I should add to my long comment above with a short remark to historical scources: phlosophy of scepticism a also an important root of doubt and contradiction for modern scientific principle but had quite other modes: In particular Pyrrhon of Elis is to mention; but here is doubt in senses and the statement that reality and truth are recognizable seen as impossible. The value of trhis philosophy was not a method to find a way of good testing hypotheses, but to get a wise attitude against the fallacies and catastrophes of the world.

We see contradiction in us and about us; because we are in contradiction, there is lack of peace in us and therefore outside us. There is in us a constant state of denial and assertion - what we want to be and what we are. The state of contradiction creates conflict and this conflict does not bring about peace - which is a simple, obvious fact. This inward contradiction should not be translated into some kind of philosophical dualism, because that is a very easy escape. That is by saying that contradiction is a state of dualism we think we have solved it - which is obviously a mere convention, a contributory escape from actuality.

For more details see:

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/contradiction.htm

I understand the contradictions in the matter of Dialectical Philosophy Within a discourse or dialogue between individuals face to face, or between work groups that defend a position; the words and the kind and argumentative dialogue is fundamental for a better communication and understanding between both parties.

Within the Discourse, positions are confronted through Thesis and Antithesis, with evidences and logical arguments or scientific assumptions verified or in the process of verification. In this dialectical confrontation, discrepancies and agreements arise, finally arriving at the assumption of a position or Dialectical Synthesis, which generally leads to an agreement for a new truth accepted by the actors of the Dialectical Discussion.

Following

DIALECTIQUE

To add to the correct comment by José Luis García Vigil: Dialectic was originally a means of rhetoric in the ancient Greeks, i.e. of conducting conversations. This meaning has been preserved to this day in terms such as "dialogue" or "discourse": That an oppositional view (counterthesis) is found for a certain view (thesis), which both lead in a higher view (synthesis) to the progress of thinking. The main meaning of dialectic, however, has changed, widended, since the Enlightenment, especially through Hegel's philosophy, namely that the forces of the world like him are united in the thinking of human opposites that leads to a dynamic of progress. In the so-called Dialectical Materialism (Karl Marx), the same dynamic laws of development are postulated for nature and society: that development and progress develop from the examination of existing opposites. But there is neither proof nor any evidence that this view is the "truth".

Interesting question.

''Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth.''

--Blaise Pascal

In one of my classes a student commented something like this: If contradictions are sources of development, and development is something so good for man: why then, contradictions produce so much discomfort in the human beings? And the student continued in a democratic dialogue: It is not to be expected that for that reason, contradictions were also sources of pleasure instead of sources of discord? At first I understood that the student was focusing his analysis on the physiological effect of the contradictory acts that affect the human being, not on the quality that the contradictions carry to induce the search for solutions.

In my research field of physics, a contradiction between two different results, obtained either by an experiment and a theory, by independent experiments, or by independent theories, on the same problem signifies the necessity of further study to find which is the reliable result. In this sense, contradictions are surely the source of development.

Contradictions arises due to different sources of information and different tools to analyze the things (data). Once there was contradictions on nature of light if it was particle or wave. Later the both were found correct as particle (mass) and wave (energy) are interchangeable. Correct me if I necessary as I have less knowledge of Physics.

Some contradictions seem to be inevitable, irrespective of attitude.

To H.Hesse, "Our mind is capable of passing beyond the dividing line we have drawn for it. Beyond the pairs of opposites of which the world consists, other, new insights begin."

Useful link

http://www.aworldtowin.net/resources/contradiction.html