Nowadays, many people believe that real and concrete things must conform to the law of identity, the law of exclusion of middle and the law of non-contradiction. Many scientists regard formal logic as the common law of all things. Some scholars, seeing the use of formal logic, regard these relations as a priori and purely rational, while rejecting dialectics entirely. In a textbook of formal logic, it is clearly stipulated that "Correct thinking should be clear and without contradiction, and the laws of identity, the law of exclusion of middle and the law of non-contradiction embody this requirement. The laws of identity, the law of exclusion of middle, and the law of non-contradiction apply most generally to all concepts, propositions, reasoning, and arguments." They do not know that formal logic is the abstraction of relations in the objective concrete world, and that this abstraction is to a large extent a distortion.

Zhang Dongsun said, "Materialist dialectics is a far-fetched and confusing thing and completely wrong." He also said that the positive, negative and unity of dialectics are completely useless in science. "The scientific method, since ancient times, is still only the so-called method of observation, induction, measurement, assay, statistics, etc., and has never used dialectics." [2]

Dialectical logic does not conform to the law of identity, the law of exclusion of middle and the law of non-contradiction. If these three rules are universally applicable, then dialectical logic has no place to be ashamed. All theories are tools of man, and man needs all kinds of tools, as long as they are useful and can bring benefits. Formal logic is not only useful, but allows the natural sciences to flourish. So formal logic is a very useful tool, and a great tool. But just formal logic is great does not mean that all logical relations must conform to formal logic. What is more, we should not blindly deny dialectical logic.

Guan Min also said that in traditional Chinese culture, attention is paid to dialectical thinking, and the thinking habit of formal logic is lacking, so it is decadent and backward. [2] It is unreasonable for Guan Min to attribute China's backwardness entirely to dialectical logic. After the Renaissance, Western science advanced rapidly, and China fell further and further behind. This is a fact, but this does not mean that dialectical logic must lead to backwardness and decay, and the fact that China's 5,000 years of glorious civilization can not be denied. Hegel and the ancient Greek philosophers also studied dialectical logic and did not slow down the development of Western civilization.