Talk:Irreducible complexity/Wade Tisthammers RFCs

RFC #1 Bertalanffy - 6 February 2006

Original filings: [1], [2]

Responses to RfC

Everything in Wikipedia should be verifyable by sources. This is especially important if an author is cited. So if the term irreducible complexity is attributed to Bertalanffy, then a verbatim quote should be given, preferable in the article, but at least in the talk page. If no quote cannot be given, then the attribution should be removed.

I give one example here: The phrase 'oida oti ouden oida' 'I know that I know nothing' is attributed to Socrates. Looking up the original source, one finds:

• 'I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either.'[3].

So either Socrates never said "I know that I know nothing", or if he said it, it is not documented. He said something similar, though, in the context of a court hearing.

Andreas 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC) amended 03:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And what is the semantic difference between 'oida oti ouden oida' and 'I do not know anything, do not think I do either.', absent the Greek for the second quote? Given that the second quote is a translation, I'd really like to see the original. I'm not saying that you are wrong, but the text (cite) might be nice. Jim62sch 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the link after the English text and then on Greek, you get: τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι: κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ' οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι. ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι [4] So you should find the German original of the Bertalanffy quote before mentioning it in the article. Andreas 03:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Andreas, thanks -- I missed the link (BTW, Perseus is an excellent tool for both Latin and Greek. I tend to use it a lot when looking for original quotes in either language). As for Bertalanffy, I have had nothing to do with that assertion, although I agree with you that the German version would be a great help. Of course German, like Greek, can be one of the harder languages from which to translate given that many words have a sense that cannot be adequately captured in many other languages without a long definition -- for example Zeitgeist and Kultur in German are frequently poorly translated, and the differences in the four Greek words (agape, philios, eros and praxis) that are equally translated into English as "love" are never truly captured. Jim62sch 11:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The content tisthammerw (Wade) objects to came to be in this article via a content move from the intelligent design article by User:DavidCary on 15 December [5]. It was first added to the ID article 6 October by User:192.80.55.74 [6]. I've left a message with User:192.80.55.74 to add a cite or clarify the content so one isn't needed. FeloniousMonk 07:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We cannot wait until an unsourced information is confirmed. It is the other way round: the information has to be removed immediately until the sources have been found. I do not do it myself now only because this is a RfC and we have to wait for some time until more opinions (hopefully) come in. Andreas 14:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This not the quote, but it does point to an earlier version of irreducible complexity: ""The analytic, mechanistic, one-way causal paradigm of classical science" (Bertalanffy, 1968a, p. xxi), as Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy describes it, assumes that reality can be quantifiably analyzed; that a whole can be understood in terms of its parts; and that the nature and function of a substance or an organism can be comprehended by reducing it to its material, externally observable components. " bartalanffy (duh, forgot to sign) Jim62sch 20:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's more: more Jim62sch 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that Bertalanffy applied the concept of systems to biology before Behe did, but we're talking about irreducible complexity here. Let's not forget what Behe's irreducible complexity is (Darwin's Black Box p. 39):

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interconnecting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Do we ever see Bertalanffy use this term as the as the entry claims? Do we ever see him use the concept at all? I've read the web pages and I have yet to find it. Perhaps if a quote can be provided... --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Bertalanffy coined the term or Behe's idea first, it says "The concept of IC comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist who believed that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to understand how they worked." which exactly sums up Bertalanffy's concept. Read some GST textbooks if you're not getting it. Behe merely took that notion, that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to understand how they work, and spun his idea IC out of it. Which brings us to a point not covered in the article but should be, that the 'irreducible complexity' was in circulation long before Behe started using it. This should be mentioned somewhere. FeloniousMonk 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That explanation has been offered to, and rejected by, Tisthammer before. Bottom line here, is that FM is accurate in what he said. Furthermore, I should like to point out that in science there are very rarely any truly new "out-of-the-blue" ideas, rather science tends to build upon past experience and theories. Thus, the mention of Behe beginning with GST theories to develop IC should not be seen by one as a negative, but rather as "proof" that Behe was following in Science's rich tradition. --[was written unsigned by Jim62sch on 09:20, January 21, 2006]

I don't really care whether or not Behe was following in "Science's rich tradition," I'm more concerned about the required citations and the accurate reporting of facts. That said, there is so far no evidence that Behe began with GST theories to develop irreducible complexity. And even if he did, the claim that the concept of irreducible complexity (whereby a system ceases to function if any of the various components are removed) came from Bertalanffy appears to be false given the lack of any citations (despite them being requested a month ago) to the contrary. In any case, the claim that the concept came from Bertalanffy should be removed under Wikipedia policy because there are no citations to support this challenged material. --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, you said "The article doesn't say that Bertalanffy coined the term" but apparently you didn't bother to check what the article said at the time I claimed otherwise. At 16:47 of January 2006:

The term [irreducible complexity] comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist...

Now the article claims that the concept originated with Bertalanffy. The problem is that we still don't have any citation to support the claim. It has been confirmed that Bertalanffy viewed biological structures as complex systems, but nowhere do we see him describe a complex system that ceases to function if any of the various components were removed (which is the concept of irreducible complexity). So far, Behe's quote of Paley seems to far more closely resemble the concept of irreducible complexity. On pp. 1-2 of Paley’s Natural Theology we find the following (the famous watchmaker analogy):

For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

Behe quoted Paley in Darwin's Black Box (see p. 212). If anything, it seems that the concept comes from Paley--the 18th century theologian--not the 20th century biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy.

So can we remove the uncited challenged material from the entry now in accordance with Wikipedia policy? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the consensus of the RfC seems to be that a citation is required for this challenged material. Since none has been provided, I am removing it under WP:CITE. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Typical. Reading one section of the discussion, you may be able to get away with saying that. But reading the entire discussion, starting with it's beginning here, you'll see that consensus was that a cite was not needed. FeloniousMonk 19:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Typical, ignoring Wikipedia policy. Even if there were consensus that a cite is not needed for this challenged material (and so far the only person to make a clear claim for that is you), it is Wikipedia policy to provide citations here. I can quote it again if you like:

Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. [emphasis mine]

So even if you rounded up some of your friends to decide that "We don't need no stinkin' citations" it would be irrelevant, since that doesn't change Wikipedia policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A splendid justification for ignoring WP:CON. Good work. Now you just have to show that your objections to the content are not another one of your many tendentious and mendacious (and always ultimately rejected) objections and you'll be set. WP:V assumes the good faith of the person raising the objection, something that your history at Talk:Intelligent design, Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism, Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, and Talk:Ontological argument calls into question. FeloniousMonk 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A poor justification for ignoring WP:CITE. Bad work. My objections are not always "ultimately rejected." As I have pointed out before, I did for instance successfully remove the straw man from the second law of thermodynamics entry (for more on that, see this talk section). Ultimately, my removal of the straw man resulted in the removal of the entire section. I've also had some (albeit not total) success regarding the apparent original research in the intelligent design entry (see this talk section and also this one). I fail to see why trying to get articles abide by Wikipedia policy puts into question my good faith.

Speaking of good faith, you yourself seem to be questionable by continuing to ignore clear and explicit Wikipedia policy regarding citations. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regular contributors at those articles have a very different take on the value of your "contributions" in "getting articles abide by Wikipedia policy" than what you choose to present here.

"I fail to see why trying to get articles abide by Wikipedia policy puts into question my good faith." Hmmm, a history of bowdlerizing and pro-ID pov campaigning just might have something to do with it... FeloniousMonk 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You yourself are guilty of bowdlerizing Felonious with your anti-ID campaigning (note, the "regular contributors" you refer to also tend to be anti-ID; and see below regarding consensus versus WP:CITE). Am I an ID adherent? When it comes to abiogenesis, yes. With Behe and his irreducible complexity I am an agnostic. But that doesn’t mean I’m happy with inserting questionable and uncited claims against him. You of course are anti-ID. Biases are perhaps unavoidable. But that doesn't mean either of us should ignore Wikipedia policy. The difference between you and me is that I make objections and improvements based on Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:CITE), whereas you Felonious ignore Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:CITE) for your own position, as this instance clearly demonstrates. You try to cite WP:CON (even if no consensus exists) to override things like WP:CITE and WP:NOR despite the fact that WP:CON says

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy).

And what I said happens to be correct. Even if you rounded up some of your friends to decide that "We don't need no stinkin' citations" it would be irrelevant, since that doesn't change Wikipedia policy that citations are required. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk's cheap here, Wade. It's history that counts, and yours says a lot more about you than I could. FeloniousMonk 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, talk is cheap here. It's Wikipedia policy that counts, and that says more about you than I could. From WP:CITE

Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor. [emphasis mine]

Speaking of history, who is the one who has been ignoring Wikipedia policy? Who is the one who has been fighting all attempts to remove the challenged, unsourced material? --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ec5618 solves the impasse

And with a few simple jabs at his keyboard, Ec5618 solves the impasse in an accurate and fair way [7]. FeloniousMonk 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The article now reads:

An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist.

Great, but we still don't have a citation to support this claim. So my demand to abide by WP:CITE has still not been met. Furthermore, aren't we forgetting something that was brought up before? On pp. 1-2 of Paley’s Natural Theology we find the following (the famous watchmaker analogy):

For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

Behe even quoted this Paley segment in Darwin's Black Box (see p. 212). If anything, it seems that the early concept of irreducible complexity comes from Paley--the 18th century theologian--not the 20th century biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (whose citation still apparently does not exist). Ec5618 apparently ignored this and provided the uncited edit anyway. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wade, I have no choice but to accept that you are being dense. Please follow the link and read the article before replying. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Name calling is no substitute for providing a citation as mandated by Wikipedia policy. Nor is it any excuse to ignore the citation I provided (William Paley). --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm so surprised that you still object. It's not as if providing cite, after cite, after cite ever satisfied your objections at the ID article, is it? FeloniousMonk 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It might if any of the "citations" you provided there had relevance to the matter at hand. For instance, one piece suspected to be original research was the argument that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Dawkins was quoted, but the quote did not even mention irreducible complexity, that the designer had to be irreducibly complex, or that the designer had to be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. More to the point, you have not even provided any citations here. There have been no citations showing that Bertalanffy came up with the concept of a biological system ceasing to function if any one of the various components were removed. Also, who has provided a citation here? That would be me, citing William Paley. Yet you ignore this citation and Wikipedia policy. May I ask why? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wade, have the concepts of word substitution, synonyms, inferrence and the like escaped your ken? The primary problem is that you seek an exact quote, verbatim, word-for-word, in the exact format and containing the exact words you want, seek, desire, wish for. If I said that Noah built a boat, you'd no doubt argue that it was an ark (which is synonymous with boat, ship, vessel, etc). Jim62sch 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the concepts of synonyms etc. have not escaped me. However no such thing has been done in any of the quotes I rejected. For instance (going back to a previous ID talk page), Dawkins says that the designer must be "complex," true. But the word "complex" is not a synonym for "ceasing to function if any of the various components is removed." Nor is a "complex designer" a synonym for "by intelligent design's own reasoning, the designer would cease to function if any of the various components are removed"--which was the claim I suspected was original research. As I said a number of times before, I'm not looking for verbatim, any paraphrase would do. But the cited quotes do not even do that. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dembski noted that sentences are complex, yes? I've removed a word from the opening line of Shakespeare's Sonnet 116. Without looking up the sonnet (I mean this seriously) what does this mean: "Let me to the marriage of true minds". Jim62sch 00:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have archived the preceding discussion. Let's work this out, with a fresh page. -- Ec5618 21:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The article currently reads:

An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist.^[8] He believed that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to understand how they worked. He extended his biological work into a general theory of systems in a book titled General Systems Theory.

After James Watson and Francis Crick published the structure of DNA in the early 1950s, GST lost many of its adherents in the physical and biological sciences. Jacques Monod's Chance and Necessity provides a good discussion of the "triumph" of the mechanistic view in biochemistry. Systems theory remained popular among social sciences long after its demise in the physical and biological sciences. Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not credit von Bertalanffy for his formulation of irreducible complexity as it applies to biological systems or note the significance of von Bertalanffy's work in formulating his own argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new when he posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems. Intelligent design advocates argue that the systems must therefore have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence.

The issue seems to be that Wade A. Tisthammer feels that a source is required. May I ask, again, specifically, for what 'fact'? -- Ec5618 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a source. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Can the drama and furious arm waving end now? FeloniousMonk 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The coding underlying that reference seems overly complex. -- Ec5618 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The "source" is a book whose page number for the claim has not been provided. Perhaps if a page number and/or quote can be provided I can verify the claim. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You pointed to a book KC. In citations like those, methinks you are required to provide a page number, otherwise it becomes extremely difficult to verify. An actual cited quote would be even better. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the challenged material Ec5618, "An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist." There appears to be no support for that claim (to recap, the concept of irreducible complexity is that a given biological system ceases to function if any of its various components are removed). It has been established that Bertalanffy viewed biological structures as complex systems, but little else. If anything, it is William Paley, the 18th century theologian who came up with an early concept of irreducible complexity. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No. The next line clearly states that the concept of IC as envisioned by Bertalanffy differed from Behe's concept. Bertalanffy envisioned complex systems, which should not be reduced if they are to be adequately analysed. As such, you may question the relevance in the context, but certainly not the facts. In my view, the information is relevant because IC has had different meanings at different times, and mentioning a version different from Behe's is not irrelevant.

As for the citation provided by KillerChihuahua, I imagine the entire book deals with Bertalanffy's views, and as such, providing a page number is not necessary.

Do you dispute that Bertalanffy worked with a form of systems complexity? -- Ec5618 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not dispute the fact that Bertalanffy viewed biological structures as complex systems, but this is hardly the same thing as the concept of irreducible complexity (which is the idea that a biological system ceases to function if any one of the various components is removed). I invite you to be aware of the fallacy of equivocation, especially since Bertalanffy apparently didn't even use the term "irreducible complexity." What we've done here is subtly redefine "irreducible complexity" and attribute it to a 20th century man who didn't even use the term or the concept the Wikipedia article is about, and then have the article chide Behe for not crediting von Bertalanffy for his formulation of "irreducible complexity"--even though Bertalanffy never seems to mention the concept or term (again, confer the fallacy of equivocation). This is terribly wrong. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The book ref is as follows: "The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components." He is saying the components "in isolation", that is, by themselves, do not function in any way that would indicate how they function as a whole. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mind giving a page number for that? Also, what Bertalanffy describes above is not the same thing as irreducible complexity (i.e. that a given biological system ceases to function if any one of the various components is removed). So why are we calling it irreducible complexity? Bertalanffy himself does not use the term, rather we have come up with a new definition, slapped it to the 20th century man who never uses the term, and then criticize Behe for not mentioning Bertalanffy (who never uses Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity nor the term). Again, this is terribly wrong. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The situation is exacerbated with the following:

Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not credit von Bertalanffy for his formulation of irreducible complexity as it applies to biological systems or note the significance of von Bertalanffy's work in formulating his own argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new when he posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems.

It isn't clear that von Bertalanffy formulated irreducible complexity, and the charge that he "gives the impression that there is something new" appears false considering he seems to credit the 18th century William Paley for the idea on page 212 of Darwin's Black Box. I have provided the Paley quote here and a verifiable citation (book, page number, and a website where you can look at it), so why does this challenged material continue to exist here? Why can’t we switch Bertalanffy for Paley given that Paley is the one we have a clear cited source for and predates the 20th century Bertalanffy? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Let's stick to a single issue for now, which seems to be "Should Bertalanffy's views be included?" -- Ec5618 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not switch von Bertalanffy for Paley? Because this is supposed to be about biology, not theology. Paley was not a biologist. Behe's idea is, at least on the surface, about complexity and systems theory in biology. Von Bertalanffy developed ideas about irreducible complexity in biological systems, and Behe's idea appears to be an intellectual offspring of von Bertalanffy's concept, whether he acknowledges it or not, and whether he knowingly borrowed from it or not. Paley and von Bertalanffy are not interchangeable elements in this argument. Guettarda 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. And Paley is already mentioned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"this is supposed to be about biology, not theology" Then why the heck is this section here? Also, that Paley was a theologian is not relevant; he still seems to have come up with an early form of irreducible complexity before Bertalanffy (if anyone could be credited for that). Leaving this out and then chiding Behe for giving "the impression that there is something new " for not mentioning Bertalanffy (neglecting to mention that Bertalanffy came up with neither the concept nor the term) and then leaving out the fact that Behe quotes Paley seems like bowdlerizing. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Paley didn't come up with IC. Paley had a neat story which illustrated the argument from (or for) design. There is a difference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Paley didn't come up with IC." And Bertalanffy did? You have failed to provide a source demonstrating that he used either the concept or the term "irreducible complexity." So far the tactic is redefining irreducible complexity to match Bertalanffy's ideas--even though Bertalanffy never uses the term. Then we credit Bertalanffy for "irreducible complexity." What point is there to doing this? Need I remind you of the fallacy of equivocation?

In contrast Paley seemed to recognize the concept (or at least a similar concept) of the watch when he said, "if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed" the system would effectively cease functioning. Recall that the concept of IC is that a given system effectively ceases functioning if any of the various components are removed. If Paley didn't come up with IC, then neither did Bertalanffy. So why are we crediting it to him? Bertalanffy uses neither the concept nor the term "irreducible complexity." --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Von Bertalanffy developed ideas about irreducible complexity in biological systems" uh, no he didn't. The concept of irreducible complexity is that a given biological system ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. Von Bertalanffy came up with neither the concept nor the term "irreducible complexity." (Or if he did, no citation has yet been given showing this.) That's why I'm disputing this. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That is specifically Behe's formulation, but that formulation is a lineal descendent, intellectually, of complexity and systems theory. Guettarda 22:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The relationship is much too loose to say, "An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy" when Bertalanffy came up with neither the concept nor the term. Bertalanffy viewed organisms as complex systems yes, but this not the same as him saying that a given biological structure ceases to function if any of the various components are removed (which is precisely the idea of irreducible complexity). Saying that Bertalanffy came up with an early concept of this idea (irreducible complexity) is thus very misleading. The man did no such thing. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why he wanted to view organisms as complex systems. Jim62sch 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

GST and IC

I've been wondering about the connection between Von Bertalanffy's concept of general systems theory, and Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. While the article currently states quite strongly that the latter is based on the first, I'm having trouble seeing how this is so. I'm afraid the article on Systems Theory is not very specific, and since I've not read Von Bertalanffy's original texts, I don't know what he based his notions on. Did he observe that certain systems lose functionality when a single component is removed? Is that why he suggests the system must be analysed as a whole? The article currently suggests that the discovery of DNA's general working led scientists to abandon GST, implying that GST is based on the assumption that biochemistry is not purely mechanistical. Did Von Bertalanffy suggest that complex systems must have been designed?

I've rewritten the disputed paragraph again, if only to fix the flow and grammar. According to Wade A. Tisthammer, Behe himself credits Paley for the concept. I find this wording to sound less acusatory, while still linking Von Bertalanffy's work to Behe's. As I'm not sure what the connection is, I'm unable to clarify further.

Michael Behe uses the term "irreducible complexity" in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, to refer to certain complex biochemical cellular systems. He posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain the development of such 'irreducibly complex' systems. Notably, Behe credits philosopher William Paley for the original concept, not Von Bertalanffy, and suggests that his application of the concept to biological systems is entirely original. Intelligent design advocates argue that irreducibly complex systems must have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence.

-- Ec5618 18:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The apparent weakness of the Wiki article on GST just means you need to dig deeper. Jim62sch 01:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Must I? If no-one raises valid objections to the current wording, or if someone else can explain the difference, there won't be need. -- Ec5618 16:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dig, Grasshopper. :) Start with this: explanation Jim62sch 23:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

RFC: "The term was credited to Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a claim was eventually removed because a citation was not provided for the challenged material, despite the fact that the request was made nearly a month ago. Should the material be removed or is a citation not required?"

PLEASE NOTE I DID NOT POST THIS RfC, I AM SIMPLY COMMENTING

Please enumerate RfC comments below. - JustinWick 20:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

Hmm, the situation has changed since I posted the RfC (I'll have to modify it). Here's the issue now:

The concept of irreducible complexity is that a given structure ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. The challenged material is, "An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist." Upon examination however, this challenged material is based upon the following quote:

The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components.

This is not the same concept as a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. Bertalanffy describes something very different here (deriving the properties and modes of action from the ensemble of the components and their relationships). Therefore, it seems that the Bertalanffy claim should be removed, because no adequate citation can be found to support the claim. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

See the above; RfC DOA QED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) .

This discussion seems to continually strand on Wade A. Tisthammer's insistence that no source has been provided, while several other editors insist it has.

In any case, Von Bertalanffy worked extensively on the concept of analysing systems, and concluded 1) that all systems share common traits, and 2) that certain systems must be analysed in totality, as opposed to part by part. That last point seems to be the crux in this matter. It seems Von Bertalanffy concluded that certain systems must be analysed as a whole, because removing a single component (even as a thought experiment) so disrupts the system that analysis is no longer possible. As such, it certainly seems that Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is remarkably similar to Von Bertalanffy's concepts.

Behe's concept of irreducible complexity suggests likewise that removing any component from certain systems destroys the system. Behe's original conclusion that this precludes such systems arising through a series of gradual changes seems to be entirely his own. -- Ec5618 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A good summary, agreed. Once again Wade favors a highly personal, narrow reading, with tendentious reasoning and a conclusion that crosses over into original research over a reasonable and accurate cite. This par for the course with him and why he's earned a place on my crank and ignore lists. Can we all go home now? FeloniousMonk 04:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[9] Carrionluggage 05:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, you said, "highly personal, narrow reading, with tendentious reasoning and a conclusion that crosses over into original research" but what original research are you talking about? Also, if anyone you should be on the crank list for willfully ignoring WP:CITE by putting back the challenged material without a citation [10], appealing to an imagined consensus. You have also removed the first RfC I put on the topic.[11] You have been very disruptive here.

Regarding the "reasonable" cite, let's put the quote (which the citation seems to be referring to given what was said in the talk page) in context with a previous paragraph (of the previous page):

On the one hand, every system in the hierarchical order, from the ultimate physical units to the atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms, exhibits new properties and modes of action that cannot be understood by mere summation of the properties and modes of action of the subordinate systems. For example, when the metal sodium and the gas chlorine combine to form natrium chloride, the properties of the latter are different from those of the two component elements ; similarly, the properties of a living cell are different from the properties of the component proteins and so on.....

The answer is simple. The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation. If, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components. [emphasis his]

Nice insight, but this is simply not the same concept as a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. The concept Bertanlaffy describes here is very different (deriving the system's properties and modes of action from the ensemble of its components). Nowhere on page 148 of the book (that the citation refers to) can one find the concept of irreducible complexity. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ec5618, you said, "This discussion seems to continually strand on Wade A. Tisthammer's insistence that no source has been provided, while several other editors insist it has." Note quite. My original objection was that no citation was given (and for over a month that was true) now that a citation has been given, my objection is that, when the reference is actually looked up, the citation does not support the claim in question (that Ludwig von Bertalanffy came up with the concept). I have obtained the book from the library have read page 148. The concept of irreducible complexity (that a given structure ceases to function if any of the various components are removed) is nowhere to be found. The quote someone gave me was found (mostly), but the quote does not appear to support the claim at hand. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, see above comments for an explanation -- my bad, a paraphrase that you already rejected because it wasn't a "qoute". @@

Ec -- this is actually where the difficulty lies: Wade asks for citation after citation after citation, carefully rejecting each one in turn as they are not exact quotes, but rather citations that require analysis and the ability extract meaning out of what is sometimes dense prose. Thus, the merry-go-round continues to spin long after the ride should have been concluded. Jim62sch 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Something which was already a long-standing problem back in November 2005, when I posted this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your "comments" seem to be unwittingly putting words in Bertalanffy's mouth. When the citation is looked up, the concept of irreducible complexity (that a structure ceases to function if any of the various components are removed) is simply not there. It is perfectly reasonable for me to reject citations that do not support the claim in question. This does not change even if a multitude of irrelevant citations are provided. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The confusion here arrises due to different uses of the word "irreducible". The "irreducible complexity" argument defines "irreducible" as "one that could not possibly have been formed by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system" -- in other words, irreducible over time. In contrast, Von Bertalanffy: "He believed that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to fully understand how they work." In other words, irreducible into component parts. Every biologist agrees with the opinion attributed to Von Bertalanffy. We cannot understand biological systems just by understanding the heart, the lungs, and so on in isolation. We must understand how they work together. This has nothing at all to do with complexity coming into being over time. Even a staunch creationist will admit that the entire complexity of the human body comes into being over time from a single egg and sperm.

The reference to Von Bertalanffy is not relevent to this article. Rick Norwood 19:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, irreducible complexity, as Behe describes it, is not just a system that could not have arised through gradual changes, it is a system of which no part can be removed without ruining the system. According to him, none of the parts of an irreducible system would be functional or advantageous until the entire system is in place.

Of course, it has been pointed out to him that a specific part of a system may change to become critically important. For example, one component could take over part of the function of another component, resulting in redundancy. Evolution may then remove the original part, at which point, removing the remaining part would render the system inoperable.

Von Bertalanffy's view that of certain systems each piece is crucially important (and that such systems must therefor be analysed as a whole) is remarkably similar to Behe's concept. -- Ec5618 19:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Original Research. After reviewing the talk page and discussing the issue with my roommate (we were both in the same undergraduate and graduate degree programs, and both have interests in complex systems), along with review of Wikipedia:No original research, I am going to have to conclude that making an assertion that does not explicitly exist as a verifiable source is original research. Blockquoth the article on no original research:

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is: * it introduces a theory or method of solution; or * it introduces original ideas; or * it defines new terms; or * it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or * it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or * it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or * it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.

In this case, we have the following statement:

An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist, though he never used the term 'irreducible complexity' in his works[3]. ... He posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain the development of such 'irreducibly complex' systems. Notably, Behe credits philosopher William Paley for the original concept, not Von Bertalanffy, and suggests that his application of the concept to biological systems is entirely original.

If the assertion that Von Bertalanffy originated the concept of Irreducible Complexity cannot be sourced - that is, a verified expert has stated in a verifyable source that this is in fact that case - then interpretation of Von Bertalanffy's work via "analysis" is, in fact, original research.

I believe that the assertion that Behe "falsly" claims the originality of his ideas in a biological context is a serious accusation that must be based on documented expert analysis, not wikipedia editors opinions. I would like to state for the record that I am in no way attempting to defend Behe, and as a scientist, I intensely dislike the Intelligent Design movement. I do not wish my "comment" to be taken as support for Behe or his ideas, but rather as an interpretation of fundamental wikipedia policy, a policy that I think is far too often ignored.

I also do not wish my "comment" to be taken as support for any particular person or side to this debate. I believe multiple individuals on both sides of the argument have been engaging in inappropriate remarks and uncivil debate.

In short, I move that the original research material be excised from the article until a verifyable source can be located. If this seems to be a "strict" interpretation of Wikipedia policy, well, perhaps it is, but I feel it is important. Wikipedia is not about the creation of information content, but rather the aggregation thereof. It has become clear to me that new information based on non-expert, non-peer-reviewed analysis by wikipedia editors is being included in the article, which is forbidden in the clause "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source."

Hopefully more individuals will respond to the Request for Comment, so that a more complete picture can be built. I am willing to reconsider my opinion in this manner in the light of new arguments (yes, I have read the entire talk page and not found it persuasive). It is my hope that this conflict can and will be solved. - JustinWick 06:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Justin here, if it's widely believed that von Bertalanffy originated the idea of irreducible complexity, then there must be some expert out there that says that von Bertalanffy originated the idea. We have a situation here where two editors interpret a quote from von Bertalanffy differently, but what do the experts think? Who claims that von Bertalanffy originated the idea? Matt 13:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

reading material Jim62sch 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

more Jim62sch 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

None of these in any way mention Behe or his specific idea of Irreducible Complexity. A quick google search shows that Wikipedia is the only place on the web where these accusations are made. Interesting reading, though - JustinWick 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A Proposed Compromise

To recap, the concept of irreducible complexity is that a given structure effectively ceases to function if any of the various components are removed (p. 39 of Darwin’s Black Box). We have been disputing whether Ludwig von Bertalanffy should be credited with the concept of irreducible complexity, whether the citation actually supports this (as opposed to say, the William Paley quote). It has occurred to me that we have been arguing about how the quotes should be interpreted--why not just let the readers read the quotes and judge for themselves? For instance, consider this proposed edit:

Prior to Behe, two men put forth concepts related to irreducible complexity (although neither actually used the term 'irreducible complexity' in their works): Ludwig von Bertalanffy and William Paley. The 20th century Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy had this to say about biological systems:

On the one hand, every system in the hierarchical order, from the ultimate physical units to the atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms, exhibits new properties and modes of action that cannot be understood by mere summation of the properties and modes of action of the subordinate systems. For example, when the metal sodium and the gas chlorine combine to form natrium chloride, the properties of the latter are different from those of the two component elements ; similarly, the properties of a living cell are different from the properties of the component proteins and so on.....

The answer is simple. The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation. If, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components.

The other person who put forth an idea related to irreducible complexity is the 18th century William Paley in his famous watch analogy (and whom Behe quotes in Darwin's Black Box on pages 211-212).

For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

And of course, verifiable citations for each quote would be provided. (Ludwig von Bertalanffy's quote comes from pp. 148-149 of Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern Biological and Scientific Thought and Paley's quote comes from pp. 1-2 of Paley’s Natural Theology ). What do you think? Can we reach a consensus on this compromise? Having the readers see the quotes for themselves to judge who (if anyone) came up with an "early concept" of irreducible complexity? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, no objections? Should I go ahead and make the edit? --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm...no. Terribly wordy, badly written, confuses more than it clarifies. Guettarda 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me which (if any) parts are confusing Guettarda and I'll be happy to clear them up. Also, please tell me which parts are “badly written” and why. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto...very hard to follow, partially conversational, partially just utterly confusing. I've no idea what the last paragraph means. Jim62sch 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So you want to remove it because you don't understand what William Paley is saying? I can understand him quite well, and as I said I suggest we let the reader decide how to interpret the passages. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's a quote, it needs attribution. Nonetheless, just because Paley wrote it does not make it bad good prose. But hey, Darwin had prosodic problems, too. Jim62sch 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"If it's a quote, it needs attribution." Well, yes and that's why I attributed it to William Paley. Perhaps I should have used the colon instead of the period to make the attribution more explicit. Very little of the writing of the proposed edit is actually mine, basically I'm just introducing the quotes and let the readers make up their minds as to which person (if anyone) came up with an "early concept" of irreducible complexity. How would you introduce the quotes? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

With quotation marks, probably. I think I would rewrite Paley's quote by saying, "In Natural Theology, William Paley put forth an argument that..." Unfortunately, his prose is as clear as mud. Jim62sch 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

With quotes as long as those it's customary to use “blockquotes” as I did. Frankly, I don't see how Paley's prose is any less clear than Ludwig von Bertalanffy's (at least when it comes to how Bertalanffy's words show that he came up with the concept of irreducible complexity). But introducing both quotes seems like the best compromise we can reach. What do you think? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Writing as a complete non expert and hoping I've not done too much damage for the day, it seems to me that this whole bit (in something closer to its current wording) would read much better if transferred to the Forerunners section, so that the Irreducible complexity (IC) section started with Michael Behe rather than delving into fairly ancient history before getting to the subject. Just my tuppenceworth. ...dave souza, talk 20:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps so. We could create a "forerunners" section with the quotes being introduced there. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dasve created one two days ago. Jim62sch 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem however is that the challenged claim of Bertalanffy coming up with irreducible complexity still remains. I think JustinWick had a good point about the interpretation of the Bertalanffy quote as "irreducible complexity" is original research and should be excluded (especially considering that most (if not all) who stopped by from the RfC appear to disagree with the interpretation of the quote). Do you have any objections to deleting the challenged claim and putting my compromise (quoting both Bertalanffy and Paley) to the "forerunners" section--allowing the reader to judge which (if any) person came up with an "early concept" of irreducible complexity? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think Paley's writing bites, but, I wouldn't oppose your proposed change. But, remember, one editor saying "OK" doesn't constitute consensus. --post unsigned by Jimsch62 on 17:32, March 2, 2006

Considering the feedback from the RfC apparently saying that the quote did not support the claim in question, that such an analysis of the quote would constitute original research (JustinWick), and since there have been no further objections to my proposed compromise, I'm going to be bold somewhat and put it in. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I see plenty of objections to it above. FeloniousMonk 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wade, if you recall, I suggested that you wait until you reached a consensus. I thought I'd give you an AFG shot, but...you went too far. Jim62sch 00:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did have the apparent consensus of the RfC on my side (regarding that the quote did not adequately support the claim in question), and I've seen people be bold before with much less, but I suppose I should've have known better. Speaking of consensus, why do you and Felonious wish to ignore what was said in the RfC? --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, only two people made objections, and one of them withdrew (Jim, "I wouldn't oppose your proposed change"). And the RfC seemed to reach a consensus that the quote did not adequately support the claim in question. Felonious, why did you ignore the apparent consensus formed from the RfC? And what would you change about the proposal to make it acceptable? Would you prefer I make a request for formal mediation since you seem to be maintaining your position in spite of the RfC? --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, the Paley quotation is the better candidate for the first description of IC. Bertalanffy's statement is on the right track; new patterns of behaviour emerge from complex systems that could not have been deduced from the behaviour of the individual components. His thinking is certainly not far from Behe's definition of Irreducible Complexity. But Paley explicitly mentions the system ceasing to function when some of its component parts are missing or altered, and he wrote his description long before Bertalanffy did. I think the case for Paley's priority is very strong, even though his writing style is excruciating. That said, I like Wade's compromise. Reyk 05:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Calm discussion

I hate worse than almost anything being told to calm down, however the discussion on this talk page seems rather heated... words such as "crank" have been brought to bear, and an (alleged) personal attack has been removed. For this RfC to have any meaningful effect, people need to cool off and be willing to accept criticism etc.

If you do not care for the RfC going on, I apologize however; whether it was necessary or not, it has been initiated and should be dealt with with maturity and coolheadedness.

Claims being made about the nature of the issue should have specific quotations/citations to events, postings, and external information sources. There are valid questions here about how much interpretation is allowed (I would argue that very little is allowed), as such interpretation is not verifiable. Significant transformations to recorded ideas of experts by nonexperts reduces the amount the claims can be trusted. If a specific claim is noteworthy/important, it should not be hard to find a verifiable source that makes the exact claim.

Is it possible for both "sides" of this dispute to prepare short, factual statements summarizing the situation and their positions on it, along with a list of references (links to previous versions, quotes, etc) that support their opinion, so this can be resolved without commenters wading through endless versions and rather unprofessional discourse. Please refrain from anything that can be taken as a personal attack - "Joe Schmoe is a crank" is not acceptable, however "Joe Schmoe posted the following questionable content:[12]".

Sorry for the length of this, but things on this talk page are becoming nonproductive. I'll check back in a few days to make a more informed comment - JustinWick 05:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tisthammerw (Wade) insists that the two following passages in the article are orignal research and the cite given is not acceptable:

An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist, though he never used the term 'irreducible complexity' in his works. He believed that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to fully understand how they work. He extended his work on biological complexity into a general theory of systems in a book titled General Systems Theory. Notably, Behe credits philosopher William Paley for the original concept, not Von Bertalanffy, and suggests that his application of the concept to biological systems is entirely original. Intelligent design advocates argue that irreducibly complex systems must have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence.

Is there a way for one to examine this reference without physically obtaining the book? Perhaps an excerpt?

Glad you asked. I actually physically obtained the book and looked up the reference. The concept of irreducible complexity was nowhere to be found, hence this RfC. The quote (which the citation seems to be referring to given what was said in the talk page) in context with a previous paragraph (of the previous page):

On the one hand, every system in the hierarchical order, from the ultimate physical units to the atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms, exhibits new properties and modes of action that cannot be understood by mere summation of the properties and modes of action of the subordinate systems. For example, when the metal sodium and the gas chlorine combine to form natrium chloride, the properties of the latter are different from those of the two component elements; similarly, the properties of a living cell are different from the properties of the component proteins and so on.....

The answer is simple. The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation. If, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components.

Nice insight, but this is simply not the same concept as a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed (i.e. the concept of irreducible complexity). The concept Bertanlaffy describes here is very different (deriving the system's properties and modes of action from the ensemble of its components). Nowhere on page 148 of the book (that the citation refers to) can one find the concept of irreducible complexity. I thus request that the claim be removed, because when the citation is actually looked up it simply does not support the claim in question. Inexplicably, some people here seem to think otherwise. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Our position has been that the passages are accurate and sufficiently cited as they stand. Simple. Except that tisthammerw has been refusing to accept any cites and compromise content offered, part of patten we've dealt with at the intelligent design article. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur with FM's statement as accurate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. -- Ec5618 10:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Jim62sch 02:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Original research" is a tricky thing on Wikipedia, as it is a rather "fuzzy" requirement. I have a bachelors degree in physics, however I am usually care to make sure that while editing the more esotheric areas of science that I minimally interpret my sources. I'd really have to see this reference to form any opinion on it, however the fact that several individuals all agree, and so far there is only a single disagreeing individual would mean (in this "truth by democracy"-driven encyclopedia, that it is likely to be a correct interpretation). - JustinWick 16:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Central bit is "The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components. "

added by KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how that indicates that the system no longer works if a single piece is excised, but merely that its properties change. Maybe I am missing something? - JustinWick 18:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As I reasoned above:

It seems Von Bertalanffy concluded that certain systems must be analysed as a whole, because removing a single component (even as a thought experiment) so disrupts the system that analysis is no longer possible. As such, it certainly seems that Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is remarkably similar to Von Bertalanffy's concepts. -- Ec5618 19:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Properties changing would also fit the IC model; when the different parts of the bacterial flagellum were shown to have function, albeit different function, Behe declared that did not disprove IC because it was not shown that the different parts could have the' same function as when a whole. I phrased that poorly but hopefully you'll understand - if not I'll go looking for the Behe quote. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but while I believe I understand both statements above, I'm unable to make the logical jump from "removal of a single part of a system alters its function" to "removal of a single part of the system discontinues its function." I apologize but I am going to try to reframe the argument in more explicit terms so I can understand better what here is "original research" (if anything). From the article:

An irreducibly complex system is defined as one that could not possibly have been formed by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system.

You all appear to wish to assert that this concept is somehow conveyed by the quote:

The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components.

I am not a biologist, however I can state with relative certainty that it is possible to construct a system that requires holistic analysis ala the second quote that is the direct result of small changes to a holistic precursor system (violating the condition of irreducability). In other words, a "holistic" complex system need not be irreducable (holism does not imply irreducability). Many biological systems can withstand small changes without ceasing to function, which would violate the definition of irreducable complexity as given. If you can find a reputable source that contradicts my statement, I would be happy to retract this statement. Otherwise I am forced to conclude that while Bertalanffy's work is certainly related to the subject (and should probably be mentioned in some capacity), Behe's idea represents a specific subset of the systems Bertalanffy described, and the given quote does not in any way imply the existence of this subset. - JustinWick 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the entire talk page? I presented a nifty little explanation (or paraphrase in Wade's terminology) of what B's statement means. Jim62sch 02:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest going straight to the source like I did rather than relying on hearsay. Or if you can't find the book, examine the quote I provided above. Does this quote imply the concept of irreducible complexity? It seems it does not, that some people here are unwittingly putting words in Bertalanffy's mouth. Many of the claims ascribed to him simply do not appear in the citation. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I made the paraphrase up out of whole cloth. Not. I did read the quote, and then, like the good analyst I am, summarized it in a simpler form. That you don't see the equivalence does not mean that people are "putting words in Bertalanffy's mouth", but simply that you don't see it. Jim62sch 19:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you think you are correctly interpreting Bertalanffy, but I am not so certain. I thus trust a published, reputable translation more than any paraphrase you come up with. I would advise other editors here to do the same: go back to the original source (e.g. the quote I provided) to make up one's own mind regarding if Bertalanffy's words contain the concept (of a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed). --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade A. Tisthammer, thank you for your tone.

Jim62sch, could you perhaps provide the original quote, in German, here, so we can all see what we're actually talking about? Thank you. -- Ec5618 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If I can find it...but does anyone here (besides me) speak German? I hope so, or I'll be wasting my time. Jim62sch 22:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Recapping

Recapping then. We have, it seems, three players:

Von Bertalanffy postulated that systems exist that cannot be analysed by analysis of individual parts.

Paley proposed the philosophical concept that design can be inferred through analysis of an object. In a way, he was the father of ID (philosophically at least).

Behe proposed the concept of IC as we all know it, and which this article seems to be about.

Am I right so far? -- Ec5618 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• A source for the information has been found, so the information is cited. Still, assuming that I am right so far, we seem to have different opinions on several points:
• On one hand, we have the assertion that Von Bertalanffy's views deserve to be included in this article, as they refer to a scientific (though outdated) concept that could be described as irreducible complexity (to understand certain complex systems one should not reduce them to parts, thus the system should be seen as being irreducibly complex). A precedent for mentioning earlier, though differing views, would be the intelligent design article, specifically the section on the orgins of the concept.

• On the other hand, we have the assertion that Von Bertalanffy's views are unrelated to the concept of irreducible complexity as it is laid out in this article, and thus should not be included. A precedent for removing content that doesn't fit the bulk of the article would be the origin of life article, which deals strictly with scientific views on the matter, though an argument for inclusion could be made since both Von Bertalanffy's and Behe's views are arguably equally scientific (in their own time and context).

• Wade A. Tisthammer's main contention, as I see it, is that in his view, the article false creates the impression that Von Bertalanffy pioneered the concept of irreducible complexity, which seems to be baseless. (If anything, Von Bertalanffy pioneered a form of systems analysis, not a method to infer design.) Assuming the text isn't removed, this issue can be resolved by finding a way to avoid giving of this impression.
• Again, is this a fair assessment? -- Ec5618 23:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Would the following be accurate then:

"Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, was the first to use the term "irriducible complexity". In the book he posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems. Intelligent design advocates argue that such 'irreducibly complex' systems must therefore have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence."

or, alternatively

"Michael Behe uses the term "irriducible complexity" in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, to refer to certain complex biochemical cellular systems. He posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain the development of such 'irreducibly complex' systems. Intelligent design advocates argue that such systems must therefore have been deliberately engineered by some form of intelligence."

-- Ec5618 14:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Either one of these wordings would be acceptable--provided of course that the Bertalanffy claim is removed. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a reasonably fair assessment, however the details of Paley's analysis (that if the parts were differently shaped or sized, placed in a different manner etc. the system would then effectively cease functioning) seem to resemble the concept of irreducible complexity, more so than anything Von Bertalanffy has said. The current wording of the article:

An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist

That the article creates a false impression "that Von Bertalanffy pioneered the concept of irreducible complexity, which seems to be baseless" is precisely what my objection is--and hopefully that objection is understandable, especially with the following text also in the article:

Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not credit von Bertalanffy for his formulation of irreducible complexity as it applies to biological systems or note the significance of von Bertalanffy's work in formulating his own argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new when he posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems.

Not only is the previous problem exacerbated, that Behe “gives the impression that there is something new” itself is a false impression, for Behe actually attributes a similar form of his argument to the 18th century William Paley (whom I quoted as being far more similar to irreducible complexity than anything the 20th century Bertalanffy has said). In doing so, he underscores the fact that he is not introducing “something new” (at least not fundamentally). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Paley's argument was philosophical. Systems science did not exist at the time, but on the other hand, systems science does not appear to be an intellectual derivation from Paley. Behe's IC, on the other hand, is just a new (and probably incorrect) application of systems science - specifically those early (and discredited) ideas of von Bertalanffy that biological systems were irreducible. The Red Queen hypothesis, despite its name, is about coevolution, not about Alice in Wonderland, despite the fact that the name (and to some extent, the underlying idea) is based on Lewis Carroll's book. Paley provides the underlying analogy, not the intellectual pedigree. Guettarda 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Paley's argument was not just "philosophical" but intellectual (he appealed to reason, claiming it supported his beliefs--even if his reasoning was flawed) and applied it to biological systems claiming they were designed (he provided not only the analogy but also further analysis into specific biological systems). Behe's IC is far more similar to Paley's concepts than anything Bertalanffy has said. BTW, can you provide a cited quote showing that Bertalanffy claimed "biological systems were irreducible"? Also, beware the fallacy of equivocation. Behe said that certain biological structures cease to function if any one of the various components are removed (his own definition of "irreducible complexity"). Do we have anything similar for Bertalanffy? Or are we using two very different definitions of "irreducible"? --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, philosophical vs intellectual. What sort of philosophical argument does not appeal to reason? No, you're using a special pleading here, and Guettarda is right about the distinction. FeloniousMonk 22:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Really? Then perhaps you can provide the cited quote I asked? Behe said that certain biological structures cease to function if any one of the various components are removed (his own definition of "irreducible complexity"). Do we have anything similar for Bertalanffy? Or are we using two very different definitions of "irreducible"? (Confer the fallacy of equivocation.) And what special pleading are you talking about Felonious? Philosophical arguments are often intellectual (as Paley's was). In any case, Bertalanffy does not seem to have provided much basis at all for Behe's IC, i.e. it is not the case that Bertanlaffy came up with "an early concept of irreducibly complex" as the article claims. There is no evidence that Bertanlaffy did any such thing. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How does Paley fit into the intellectual tradition of systems theory in biology? Guettarda 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said he did. My point however is that systems theory does not apply to the extent where we can say, "An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist." It seems that Ludwig von Bertalanffy did no such thing (and that the "early concept" would be more correctly attributed to the 18th century Paley). Behe was not the first to view biological structures as complex systems, true. But the Bertalanffy claim is still very misleading, if not outright false. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave Paley out of this discussion just yet. Even if we agree to remove the text on Von Bertalanffy, putting information concerning Paley in its place is another matter entirely.

Wade A. Tisthammer, while Von Bertalanffy definition of irreducibly complex may have differed from the one Behe proposes, it seems that he did suggest that certain systems were irreducibly complex, and as such, the above quote is accurate, in my view. "An early concept of irreducibly complex systems" does not mean "An early concept of 'irreducible complexity', per se". The text is accurate.

Note also that the intelligent design article mentions that the first recorded arguments for a natural designer come from Greek philosophy, when it is clear that this philosophy is not strictly speaking related to the current notion of intelligent design. In a similar way, you must see that an argument can be made for inclusion of the Von Bertalanffy information in this article. Yes, Von Bertalanffy never laid the foundation for what would later become irreducible complexity, but he did consider a concept that could be labeled 'irreducible complexity.

I can agree with you that a case could be made for the idea that the information be moved to another article, perhaps the article on Von Bertalanffy. But your main contention, as I see it, was that Von Bertalanffy was unfairly being credited for Behe's concepts, and I hope we can agree that we can put that issue to rest.

Please, accept your partial victory as such. Thank us for our co-operation in this matter. Thank you. -- Ec5618 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ec5618, you said, "while Von Bertalanffy definition of irreducibly complex may have differed from the one Behe proposes, it seems that he did suggest that certain systems were irreducibly complex." Please provide a cited quote for this! So far, it seems that Bertalanffy uses neither the concept nor the term irreducible complexity.

One of the reasons I cited Paley was because of this passage:

Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not credit von Bertalanffy for his formulation of irreducible complexity as it applies to biological systems or note the significance of von Bertalanffy's work in formulating his own argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new....

This is very misleading. Behe does not give the impression that there is "something new" because he cites Paley in page 212--a man who presents something far more similar to Behe's irreducible complexity than anything Bertalanffy has said.

May I ask what basis is there to credit Bertalanffy with irreducible complexity when he came up with neither the concept nor the term? The "Von Bertalanffy" definition is one of the editor's definition, not Bertalanffy's. So the article creates a new definition of irreducible complexity, credits Bertalanffy with coming up with the concept when he never even uses the term, and then the article chides Behe (who uses a very different defintion) for not crediting "Bertalanffy for his formulation of irreducible complexity." Can you say fallacy of equivocation? Especially when the article leaves out the fact that the meaning of "irreducible complexity" has drastically changed between the two different contexts (i.e. between an editor's defintion and Behe's)?

And there is no verifiable citation to support even the "Von Bertalanffy" definition. Ec5618, I think you are swallowing this claim far too easily. I initially removed the text because no citation could be found even after a month of waiting. You recklessly put back the challenged material even when it had no citation, and even though WP:CITE demands otherwise (and even explicitly says, "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor").

The article now refers to a book, but gives no page number or quote as to where this idea might be found, thus making it very difficult to verify. You said, "I imagine the entire book deals with Bertalanffy's views" but your imagination aside, I would like a verifiable citation showing that the idea of an irreducibly complex system is among Bertalanffy's views. If I obtain the book and see that it is not in the first ten pages, the response will likely be "it's in there somewhere." There has been no verifiable citation to show that Bertalanffy comes up with either the term or concept of irreducible complexity. No credible case (within the guidelines of Wikipedia policy WP:V and WP:CITE) can be made for the inclusion of the Bertalanffy claim.

"An early concept of irreducibly complex systems" does not mean "An early concept of 'irreducible complexity', per se

Then this is another reason why the statement is misleading. Using ordinary rules of English, an irreducibly complex system is a system that possesses irreducible complexity. I've said it before but it bears repeating: beware the fallacy of equivocation. Also, please provide a verifiable citation to support this questionable and challenged material. --Wade A. Tisthammer 15:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - I have decided to be bold and have made it clear that the meaning of "irreducible complexity" drastically changes between the two different contexts (i.e. between Bertalanffy and Behe) to guard against the fallacy of equivocation. It still seems questionable to attribute an early concept of irreducible complexity to Bertalanffy however, since he does not use the term and the "concept" is very different. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Acquire the book. Jim62sch 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

subheader

Getting back to the point:

• You say that Behe's idea derives from Paley but not from von Bertalanffy. But Behe's idea is an application of systems science ideas to biological systems, and argues that irreducible systems exist in biology. How does this not derive from von Bertalanffy?
• You argue abou the "fallacy of equivocation", and yet you seek to connect Behe with Paley, whose relationship with Behe's idea is almost purely one of naming. Isn't this far more a "fallacy of equivocation" than is the comparison to von Bertalanffy's idea, which may not share the name but which is an clear intellectual antecedent? Guettarda 17:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, you say that "Behe's idea is an application of systems science ideas to biological systems" but in what way? That they both treat biological structures as complex systems? That's a rather tenuous relationship, and certainly not enough to make the claim present in the article. Also, there has been no verifiable citation showing that Bertalanffy came with the term or concept of an "irreducibly complex system." There is no clear intellectual antecedent here, at least none that is supported with a verifiable citation.

My point of connecting Paley with Behe is that if anyone, it is Paley that has an early concept of irreducible complexity--whose relationship with Behe's idea is not one of naming, but rather the concept itself. On pp. 1-2 of Paley’s Natural Theology we find the following (the famous watchmaker analogy):

For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.

This is very similar to the idea that a system ceases to function if any of the various components are removed (i.e. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity)--more to the point it is more similar to Behe’s irreducible complexity than anything Bertanlaffy has said. It would thus be inappropriate to attribute the early concept to the 20th century Bertanlaffy when attributing it to the 18th century Paley would be far more accurate (even if it is not entirely correct).

Speaking of fallacies of equivocation, I noticed that the most recent edit removed this part:

However, it should be noted that in the context of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the terms "irreducible" and "irreducible complexity" have very different meanings from how Behe uses the terms (Behe defines the concept as a given structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed).

The version attributes Bertalanffy for coming up with an "early concept of irreducibly complex systems," it then leaves out the fact that the meaning of the terms are very different before chiding Behe for "not credit[ing] von Bertalanffy for his formulation of irreducible complexity" and saying that Behe "rather gives the impression that there is something new" when he does no such thing, because he quotes Paley on p. 212 of Darwin's Black Box, a person who gives a concept more similar to irreducible complexity than anything Bertalanffy has said. How's that for misleading equivocation? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade A. Tisthammer, please, why are you rehashing old points? If we had inserted the text I proposed, the whole issue of Behe 'failing to credit' Von Bertalanffy for the concept would have been fixed. Again:

The article had suggested that Behe should have credited Von Bertalanffy. It no longer does.

The article suggested (to you at least) that Von Bertalanffy's and Behe's concepts were identical or very similar. We have tried to clarify the differences.

As for your last issue; removing the information regarding Von Bertalanffy completely. Please see that an argument can be made for the inclusion of the text. Several editors have tried to convince you that it should be included. Whatever your personal feelings, since you are alone in trying to remove the text, versus a number of editors in favour of keeping it, I'm afraid you will have to try to build consensus.

That brings us to the reason I reverted your change; you had failed to reach consensus. Any edit that you know will be reverted, is not worth the trouble. It is my firm belief that all edits must be made to stay, not to make a point, or to get attention. Can you honestly say you had expected that no-one would revert your change? In my book, consensus is paramount, and it is a guideline only because it is hard to define consensus.

Finally, regarding WP:CITE, yes, the RfC suggested that a citation should be provided. Please stop suggesting such has not been provided. The citation proves that Von Bertalanffy was working on systems he deemed so complex that they should be viewed as a whole. In other words, systems that cannot be properly analysed when they are reduced to their base components. While that may not fit your or Behe's definition of irreducible complexity exactly, it is something similar.

Perhaps this discussion is going in circles. Could you please provide, on this Talk page, the edits you would like to make. Keep in mind that any edit involving the removal of the Von Bertalanffy information will probably not be accepted. -- Ec5618 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not rehashing old points. Did you read what I said above? You said, "As for your last issue; removing the information regarding Von Bertalanffy completely" except I did not remove the information regarding Bertalanffy completely. What I did was try to clarify the differences.[13] You say that you reverted my edit because I "failed to reach consensus." Even if FeloniousMonk got some of his friends to say "We don't need no stinkin citations" that would not be relevant (as it stood, only FeloniousMonk claimed no citations are necessary, with two against), because WP:CITE clearly says that any challenged uncited material can be removed by any editor. You ignored WP:CITE and reinserted the challenged material with no citation. Appealing to imagined consensus does not change Wikipedia policy.

You said, "The article had suggested that Behe should have credited Von Bertalanffy. It no longer does." Then what are we to make of this?

Although not actually using the term, an early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist.....Michael Behe, in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, does not credit von Bertalanffy for his formulation of irreducible complexity as it applies to biological systems or note the significance of von Bertalanffy's work in formulating his own argument, but rather gives the impression that there is something new when he posits that evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for the emergence of some complex biochemical cellular systems.

The article still suggests that Behe should have credited Bertalanffy, and has removed the part notifying the very different meanings of "irreducible complexity" as I said above.[14]

You said, "Please stop suggesting such has not been provided. The citation proves that Von Bertalanffy was working on systems he deemed so complex that they should be viewed as a whole." But this is not the concept of irreducible complexity, which is what the citation was supposed to support. Or if this is how you define "irreducible complexity" the article should mention that definition. We have some progress in that a page number has been provided, though. Can a quote from that page be provided here? I would like to know which part of the page it is believed to support the claim. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Same quote as in archives, same quote as above on this page, take three, please read it this time: "The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components." This is from Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern Biological Thought, page 148 (in the 1952 edition, I don't know where it is in other editions.) There is more in the book. You can check with your local library, or there are quite a few copies for sale on the 'net: abebooks has one for $3.00 here or Amazon had several copies when I checked a few minutes ago. You could also try alibris; they are an excellent source for books. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forget Alibris, their cheapest copy is $89.00 here. Try the library or abebooks or Amazon. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Even e-bay or half.com would work. KC took the time to find the cite Wade requested, Wade can show good faith by actually procuring a copy of the work. Jim62sch 00:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You said, "Same quote as in archives, same quote as above on this page." You mean that's all you have? I didn’t think that all you had to support the challenged claim is:

The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components.

This is not the same concept as a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. The concept Bertanlaffy describes here is very different (deriving the properties and modes of action from the ensemble of the components and their relationships). For now, I do not doubt the quote's accuracy, since the same quote can be found on the web. I did however make a request for the book to be furnished at a nearby library to verify the quote anyway (the book is not readily available). I'll let you know the results soon. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Update I have acquired the book and found the quote (mostly, KC neglected to add the emphasis). To put it into context, I have added a previous paragraph found in the previous page:

On the one hand, every system in the hierarchical order, from the ultimate physical units to the atoms, molecules, cells, and organisms, exhibits new properties and modes of action that cannot be understood by mere summation of the properties and modes of action of the subordinate systems. For example, when the metal sodium and the gas chlorine combine to form natrium chloride, the properties of the latter are different from those of the two component elements ; similarly, the properties of a living cell are different from the properties of the component proteins and so on.....

The answer is simple. The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation. If, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components. [emphasis his]

Nice insight, but again this is simply not the same concept as a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. The concept Bertanlaffy describes here is very different (deriving the system's properties and modes of action from the ensemble of its components). Nowhere on page 148 of the book (that the citation refers to) can one find the concept of irreducible complexity. Can we remove the claim now? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

REDUX: Why do you think Bertanlaffy viewed organisms as complex systems? Spend some time pondering this one. Jim62sch 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because organisms are complex systems? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade A. Tisthammer, you're right, the article still contains the suggestion that Behe should have acknowledged Von Bertalanffy's role. I spoke too soon. I note however that you did not pursue the proposed changes to the article that would have eliminated said suggestion, and could thus have made my statement true days ago.

Also, as you can clearly see, your suggestion that there is no citation for the Von Bertalanffy information is disputed at least, and has been for a while now. I don't see how you can continue to cling to WP:CITE, when it seems the information is cited. Your suggestion that WP:CITE is being violated is disputed, and thus not an absolute truth. By continually suggesting other editors are violating policy, you come across as obstinate, not observant. I mean this constructively.

I'll ask again. Could you please provide, on this Talk page, the edits you would like to make. Keep in mind that any edit involving the removal of the Von Bertalanffy information will probably not be accepted. Please try to compromise, it needn't fit exactly what you seek. Perhaps it will give some useful insight into your reasoning. -- Ec5618 02:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You said, "I don't see how you can continue to cling to WP:CITE, when it seems the information is cited." Please reread what I said earlier. I said you have violated WP:CITE by reinserting the uncited challenged material. Other editors (certainly FeloniousMonk) may be guilty of this as well. The point of me bringing this up was that you claimed to revert my edits because of an imagined consensus. I pointed out that (a) the consensus that a citation was not required seemed to consist solely of one person (b) even if a consensus did exist, that would not matter because WP:CITE still applies; it is better to enforce WP:CITE rather than to blindly follow consensus when deciding whether to make reverts.

Now, please be aware of my current objection. The current issue is somewhat different. A citation has been provided, the problem is now that the citation doesn't seem to support the claim. The concept attributed to Ludwig von Bertalanffy is that a given structure ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. The quote on page 148:

The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components.

This simply does not contain the concept of a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed (which is "irreducible complexity"), unless one is defining the "irreducible complexity" to mean something very different. He doesn't even say that complex systems must be examined as irreducible systems in order to understand how they work. He does say taht we must know the ensemble of the components and the relations between them to understand how they work.

I have already told you the edits I would like to make. Please see this page where you can compare and contrast the changes I made. It's still not perfect, since no citation can be found for the claim regarding Bertanlaffy believing that complex systems must be examined as irreducible systems. Additionally, no page number was provided (at the time) nor a quote to see what the claim is based on. So better yet, see here and here with those changes made. I still think the inclusion of Bertanlaffy is pointless, but this version at least gives a much clearer impression as to what Bertanlaffy actually said and the differences between him and Behe regarding the issue, and it is a comprimise that I could live with. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of those 'suggested' edits, and find them unacceptable, as you completely changed the meaning of the text to your own POV. Note that I have actually encorporated some of your point in the paragraph as it currently stands, without making such unsupported changes.

Wade A. Tisthammer, you have continually expected other editors to find sources, rewrite sections, or remove content. I've not seen you make an sort of contribution to the article itself. Your edits are almost invariably POV, and your attitude quite tiring. It is quite easy to complain about something, but quite another to actually fix what is wrong, in an honest and neutral way. I have listened to your objections so far, because I was able to see your point: the article seemed to state that Behe's concept of irreducible complexity was identical to Von Bertalanffy's, and seemed to berate Behe for his theft of intellectual property. This objection has since been fixed, however, and I am done.

Frankly, I'm not willing to continue this discussion until you actually make a good case for your arguments. I would encourage you to read up on Von Bertalanffy's work, summarise both concepts, and draw up a list of similarities and differences between the two concepts. You may wish to contribute to the article on Von Bertalanffy, and discuss your points with editors there. You may then present that list here, at which point I may be willing to co-operate with you again.

Please, find a way to contribute substantially. -- Ec5618 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you find them unacceptable? You said, "you completely changed the meaning of the text to your own POV" but what POV is that? All I did was clarify the differences between Behe and Bertanlaffy; I did not insert pro-ID arguments or anything of the sort. What on earth is there anything to object to? Why, for instance, would you object to providing the cited quote:

The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components.

so people can see what the claim "an early form of irreducible complexity" is based on?

I have tried to fix what is wrong in an honest and neutral way, but my attempts have been reverted by people who ignore WP:CITE (including you, when you re-inserted the challenged material without providing a citation[15]). You claim I have not actually made a good case for my arguments. Let me present to you my case again. The concept of irreducible complexity is that a given structure ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. The challenged material is, "An early concept of irreducibly complex systems comes from Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a 20th Century Austrian biologist." Upon examination however, this challenged material is based upon the following quote:

The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of the properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation, if, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components.

This is not the same concept as a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed. Bertalanffy describes something very different here (deriving the properties and modes of action from the ensemble of the components and their relationships). Why do you think this is not good grounds for my objection? You have not explained. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, I'm going to put Bertalanffy's comments into a more modern form:

The whole is not a sum of the individual actions of the parts. But, if we know how the parts act in concert, then the whole can be understood. Id est, absent one of the parts, the whole is no longer whole. Jim62sch 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer accurate quotes rather than your paraphrases. And when we actually look up the citation (as I did) we find that the concept of irreducible complexity is nowhere to be found. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A fascination with exact quotes merely indicates a complete lack of analytical ability. Quite sad really, as analysis, not rote memorization of quotes, are what allowe scientists to blaze new trails.

Now, let us take this example: here is a direct quote from Newton, "Actioni contrariam semper et aequalem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones is se mutuo semper esse aequales et in partes contrarias dirigi." Would you prefer that over the standard "paraphrased" version?. Jim62sch 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The man was English, are you saying we have no real cite for his Third Law of Motion? I think I just felt the Earth move. -- Ec5618 00:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We only have a translation of what he wrote, and numerous paraphrases used to offer a clearer explanation. As did all educated Englishmen of his era, he wrote in Latin. Jim62sch 00:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say I trust a Bertalanffy translation from a published, reputable source rather than your own "paraphrase." So far you seem to have an unwitting tendency to put words in Bertalanffy's mouth. For instance, when I obtained the book and looked up the Bertalanffy citation the concept of irreducible complexity was nowhere to be found. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Because you did't want to see it. Jim62sch 19:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Von Bertalanffy

Von Bertalanffy concluded that certain systems must be analysed as a whole. It seems to me that his reasoning is the issue here. If he specifically reasoned that certain systems lose their function when a single piece is removed, it would certainly seem that he did first introduce a concept of irreducible complexity.

We know, from several sources, that Berthalanffy reasoned that systems have unique characteristics (removing certain parts changes those characteristics and destroys the system). Jim62sch provided some reference material above. Quoting:

"Von Bertalanffy's work established that the behavior of living phenomena is best comprehended in terms of wholes, rather than parts. He also discerned that biological wholes--animal or vegetable; cell, organ, or organism-- are best described as systems. The system, as described by von Bertalanffy, is less a "thing" than a pattern of organization. Systems are comprised of a unified pattern of events, and their existence, as well as their character are derived more from the nature of their organization, than from the nature of their components. As such, a system consists of a dynamic flow of interactions that cannot themselves be quantified, weighed or measured. The pattern of the whole is "non-summative" and irreducible. Hence, as a pattern of organization, the character of a system is altered with any addition, subtraction or other form of perturbation in any of its constitutive elements." Cybernetics

What am I missing here? -- Ec5618 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence S. Bale (the author) was correct: the behavior of a system may indeed be altered with any addition or subtraction of its constitutive elements, but nobody claims that Behe was the first person to come up with this semi-obvious fact, and this is still not quite the same thing as irreducible complexity (as Behe defines it), and we still don't have a verifiable reference of von Bertalanffy himself describing the concept of irreducible complexity. (When the Bertalanffy citation of the Wikipedia entry is looked up, the concept is nowhere to be found.) By the way, you have misquoted the text slightly. It is customary to point out that it is your emphasis given and not the author's (i.e. the text you quoted was not so italicized). --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC #2 Designer is complex - 23 March 2006

Original filing: [16]

God The Designer and Irreducible Complexity

I am bringing this discussion back from /Archive01, hoping for a consensual decision (I had removed the section, but it was reverted due to insufficient discussion). Rend 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this subsection to be removed, because it's simplistic, is out of context, and unclear. It should be either rewritten, explaining its role in the issue and its conclusion or be removed. It seems to be a philosophical issue related to God paradoxes and theodicy, and in that case it is not a directly related topic and would require a much longer discussion.

Rend 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Behe himself says that designing life (as for irreducibly complex systems) requires a lot of intelligence but not the supernatural, and thus the section appears to be rather out of place. As Rend said, it seems to be a philosophical issue related to God paradoxes and theodicy. Perhaps more applicably, this argument smells suspiciously of original research. I suggest this challenged material be removed, especially if no citation can be provided of a leading ID opponent making this argument. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't say. What a surprise... FeloniousMonk 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I do tend to be strict about citations and original research. But there appears to be no reason to think that Rend’s concerns are unjustified. Even if we throw out Wikipeida policy regarding citations and original research, the subsection does seem out of place here, particularly given Behe's views regarding irreducible complexity and the supernatural. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You can resurrect this crusade as many times as you wish, but the bottom line is that the God and Irreducible Complexity section of the article will stay. Jim62sch 21:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not. The "God" part has been removed. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. Behe may have been the originator of this concept (at least in its latest incarnation) and may be attempting to distance his theories from the supernatural but many others have explicitly linked the concepts. It would be a disservice to readers to attempt to hide that particular aspect of the controversy. Rossami (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You said, "but many others have explicitly linked the concepts." But if that is true, if this argument is not original research (this argument is strikingly similar to another that I had removed from the intelligent design section on the grounds that it constituted original research) a citation for this challenged claim should be provided of a leading ID proponent making this argument. For the moment, we can ignore the fact that Behe's actual beliefs are that designing life requires the a lot of intelligence, it does not require the supernatural. (Little is to be gained by attacking views opponents do not hold, or by mischaracterizing the opposition). I feel that if it should be proven that this objection is not original research, Behe's actual views should be mentioned so as to not give a false impression. So far, the word "God" has been excluded so that does not appear necessary right now. For the moment, WP:CITE and WP:V demands that a citation be given for this challenged material. Original research is not permissible (among other things, one cannot simply insert one’s own personal arguments against a belief one doesn’t like into Wikipeida entries). If this objection is indeed "the most basic philosophical criticism" it shouldn't be too hard to find a leading ID proponent who makes this argument, right? So why has WP:CITE been ignored for over a month now despite my request of a citation? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The content you tried to delete as "uncited" is completely consonant with other cited content at Intelligent_design#The_designer_or_designers and Intelligent_designer#Criticism. As such, it's sufficiently supported by other cited content. Interestingly, this is exactly the same sort of content you disrupted the ID article for months over, implying that the campaign continues... FeloniousMonk 18:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If trying to get the article conform to Wikipedia policy and enforcing WP:CITE is "disruptive" then I'm guilty. Now if this argument is not original research, can you please provide me a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes this argument? I checked up on the citation in the section and couldn't find the said argument anywhere. Can you provide me a quote to where it is? You said, “completely consonant with other cited content” but merely being consonant is not enough; there has to be a citation containing the actual argument. Since you provided no such cited source, I was well within my bounds in enforcing WP:CITE, which explicitly says, “any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.” --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your idea of conforming an article to policy has very slight relationship to actual policy and more to do with your personal POV and original research, experience has taught us. The content is now cited. Of course you'll reject the cite, as you have at other articles, such is the cycle of Wade, but it is cited. FeloniousMonk 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're accusing me of original research? Can you point out one specific example of where I inserted original research into the article? In contrast, this section appears to be original research. If this citation really is valid, if the argument is not original research, why can't you provide me a quote from the source that contains the said argument? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wade wrote "this argument is strikingly similar to another that I had removed from the intelligent design section on the grounds that it constituted original research" - I have no idea what you are talking about, since the same material (albeit differently worded) is still in the ID article. I remember you complaining that no citation was good enough for you unless there was a DI member using the exact phrasing... and other such silly complaints. Guettarda 18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please point to me a specific example of where I said, "no citation was good enough for you unless there was a DI member using the exact phrasing." The "same material" did not appear to be present last time I looked at the article. Could you tell me exactly where it is? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you've said something along those lines many times at Talk:Intelligent design. There's several archived talk pages entirely dedicated to your tendentious objections. FeloniousMonk 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And yet it seems you cannot find any specific examples to adduce your accusations. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wade, why is it that FM, Guettarda and I recall you making comments along those lines, and you don't? Or do you really think any of us are going to waste valuable time looking for the exact quotes? Jim62sch 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly? No, I do not expect you to support your accusations. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_20, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_21, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_21A. And that's just the ID article. FeloniousMonk 17:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You've pointed to whole archives with numerous posts and topics by many people; how about you quote a specific block of text where I allegedly did any of the misdeeds you are accusing me of? Or is it that you cannot find any credible evidence to support your personal attacks against me? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Wade, stop being pompous and lazy. If FM took the time to find the archives (something I'd not have bothered to do), you can look through them (i.e., read them) to find the quotes. BTW, Wade, they were not personal attacks. A number of us recalled you making such statements, thus rather than attacks they were statements of truth -- but, you probably know that as part of your m.o. is to cry foul whenever you don't like something but have no real defence. Jim62sch 10:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You said, "A number of us recalled you making such statements" and yet their memories cannot be verified with any specific examples of where I said "such statements"? The burden of proof upon making accusations lies on the accuser. It is not "lazy" of me to demand that people back up their accusations. If anything, it is lazy for the accuser to attack a fellow Wikipedia editor (regarding things like original research) without bothering to provide evidence. My defense? The failure for the accuser to provide any verifiable evidence (as a specific quote of what I said and where I said it, as opposed to pointing to entire archives with many posts by many people and essentially saying something to the effect of "the evidence is in there somewhere, but I'm not going to trouble myself to tell you where it is or what exactly he said and did..."). --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone attacked you Wade. Anyway, just for funsies I started to go through the archives, searching on "wade". I only got but so far, as reading the same thing said sideways 900 times created in me such a spirit of ennui that I nearly suffered a narcoleptic fit. Jim62sch 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC for Suspected Original Research and Questioned Citation

Note: I split this subsection up for the request for comment I put up. I suspected the following viewpoint to be original research:

either the designer of supposedly irreducibly complex objects is irreducibly complex and hence requires a further designer-of-the-designer (ad infinitum) to create the designer, or that the designer is not irreducibly complex, and can be reduced to naturalistic explanation

A citation has now been provided, but (1) when the citation is looked up it does not appear to contain the viewpoint in question (see the web page here) and (2) there are some serious Wikipedia policy and guideline concerns regarding the validity of the citation, as described below: --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Others disagree. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Namely, FeloniousMonk; I know. Please confine your remarks below, after I finish describing what the RfC is about. BTW, neither you nor anyone else has (yet) even addressed what I said regarding WP:NPOV Wikipedia policy on viewpoints, much less disagreed with it (thought I have little doubt you will soon). --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment wherever I see fit within the bounds of policy, guideline and convention. Please don't try to tell me or anyone else here where or when they can comment. FeloniousMonk 20:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be some Wikipedia policy/guideline concerns regarding the citation. For instance, isn’t the citation just a web page from this guy's personal website? If so it appears to violate WP:RS, which clearly says that, "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources."

Also, there's the WP:NPOV Wikipedia policy on viewpoints. Is this viewpoint on irreducible complexity a majority view? Then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; which this website clearly is not. If this viewpoint on irreducible complexity is a significant minority view, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; which this website is also not. If this viewpoint is a an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Under WP:CITE and WP:V, shouldn't we remove the challenged material until a reputable, verifiable citation be found? --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"There seem to be some Wikipedia policy/guideline concerns regarding the citation" indeed. All of which are tendentiously raised by Wade as part of his long-running POV campaign. FeloniousMonk 19:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So trying to make articles coincide with Wikipedia policy (as in removing original research, enforcing WP:RS and WP:NPOV Wikipedia policy on viewpoints) is a POV campaign? And on what grounds do you call Wikipedia policy and guidelines "tendentious"? --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

When the entire scope of your trying to make articles coincide with Wikipedia policy consists of only removing criticisms, then yes. The fact that you misuse Wikipedia policy as a pretense for so doing only compounds my allegation that you're abusing the project. FeloniousMonk 20:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If the criticisms are original research, or violate WP:NPOV Wikipedia policy on viewpoints, shouldn't they be removed? And wouldn't violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines to have those criticisms remain constitute more of a tendentious "long-running POV campaign"? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't delete my replies to you again, and why do you insist on putting your comments ahead of someone who replied before you did (namely, BradC)? Why don’t you go in order as I do (first reply right underneath, second reply below that etc.)? Do you consider your reply more important? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We wouldn't have this issue if you didn't repeatedly insist on moving my comments to the bottom of the page. And to answer your question, there's no guideline or convention for removing objections that abuse policy, only for removing personal attacks. FeloniousMonk 20:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So removing some objections against intelligent design in a Wikipedia entry because those particular objections are original research (or violate some other Wikipedia policy) constitutes an abuse of that policy? What constitutes "abuse"? Is it “abuse” because applying the Wikipedia policies and guidelines becomes inconvenient to you? Is it abuse because you’d rather have the viewpoint remain?

BTW, I only moved your reply down because you seemed to put your reply out of place; you put your reply ahead of someone else who replied before you did. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in previous discussion on this topic, so I can't speak to prior conversation, but I also think that this section probably ought to be removed. A couple of specific reasons:

1. The reference in the footnote that purportedly supports this section doesn't say ANYTHING about irreducible complexity.

As old as the hills is the response "If complex things require designers, then what intelligence designed the intelligent designer?" As obvious as this is, it is still one of the most powerful refutations of the design argument. [17]

Whether it IS a "powerful refutation" is the center of the debate itself, but even if you think it is, this quote (or this concept, at least) belongs on the general Intelligent Design page and not the Irreducible complexity page.

2. Translating the "well, who designed the designer" argument into a "is the designer of irreducibly complex objects also irreducibly complex" argument is a pretty big stretch, and the argument totally falls apart when you start to examine it. Specifically, irreducible complexity is all about "could the individual parts have come together to make the complex machine" (through slight, successive modifications, etc). Well, if we're talking about "is the creator irreducibly complex", what's the "parts"? what's the "machine"? The discussion doesn't go anywhere because it just doesn't apply here.

Bottom line: This is an argument worthy of some mention on the general Intelligent Design page (or maybe the "who is the designer" page), but not here. BradC 06:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity is a type of complexity, a subset. IC being a subset of complexity, in "If complex things require designers, then what intelligence designed the intelligent designer?" complexity subsumes types of complexity, like irreducible complexity. In other words, IC is not a special case. FeloniousMonk 16:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be problematic, in that it is critique that is made of this argument. Certainly Demsbki and Behe have felt a need to respond to it in at least some circumstances(although the only citation I have for that right now, is Dembski's Panda game http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinalia/panda-monium.swf (where the Philosopher Panda makes this critique (see the Panda gallery)). I'll try to see if I can find a source that better meets WP:V and WP:If we use this as a source Wikipedia may be liable for the people who die laughing when they look at the what the source is. JoshuaZ 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttals of a more general sort have been made for some time now. The "who designed the designer" essentially says that a design inference of life is not legitimate because it does not answer the origin of the designer. By this logic however, if we found a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars, we could not infer design because we cannot answer the origin of the designer; which seems a bit irrational to say the least. The bigger concern however is not that ID adherents have a rebuttal--it's whether the viewpoint on irreducible complexity is original research and if the citation provided is valid according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, that's highly flawed reasoning, and my point was in any event that the Pandas game refers to philosophers who assert that the intelligent designer would also need to be irreducibly complex. As for your analogy, its so bad, I'm not even sure where to start. For one, one could just was well answer in that case "they evolved" for another, the reason we presume that it was designed has nothing to do with irreducible complexity or anything like that, but rather that it is basically identical to things which we know are designed, so it is a minimally reasonable to conclude that it is designed. Now, this is getting highly off topic. JoshuaZ 22:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize how silly your analogy is? And you are misreading the argument regarding "who designed the designer?" Jim62sch 18:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, this appears to be your own personal (and disputed) analysis, and it seems this should not be included due to Wikipedia policy on these matters. It could be argued, for instance, that a designer of irreducible complexity does not have to contain irreducibly complex structures (as a matter of fact, the leading ID proponent of irreducible complexity--Michael Behe--has explicitly said this very thing). If a "who designed the designer" criticism was added to the intelligent design entry, I would have no objection because I believe it is not original research (though perhaps verifiable citations should be added anyway just to be safe). But the viewpoint on irreducible complexity you are defending does not seem adequately supported since that the citation does not coincide with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I described above. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow, such a deep thought by Behe. Reminds me of the utter sillines of the cosmological argument. Any time an argument such as Behe's or Aquinas' has to rely on a non-falsifiable premise in order to keep it from sinking, it isn't an argument that is worth a damn.

As for the IC paradox mentioned in the article, it is a real paradox. If the designer is irreducibly complex, an infinite chain is created (unless you do the Aquinas bit and add a non-falsifiable premise -- and if you do, change IC to CA); if the designer is not IC, then there's no reason for IC to exist in order to prove the origins or development of life as there is then no argument why life itself could not have evolved naturally. Jim62sch 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your own personal beliefs, this is not the place for original research. One cannot simply make up an argument--even if they believe the argument to be sound--and insert it into the Wikipedia entry. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no shortage of instances of ID's critics arguing that positing a designer creates the paradox of who designed the designer. Dawkins [18], Simanek [19], Wein [20], the list is long regardles of how often or loudly you deny or ignore them while insisting the argument is original research. BTW, doing so consitutes tendentious arguing, which is a form of disruption, and since you have a long history of doing this, this is why I consider you a chronic disruptive POV-pusher and malcontent. FeloniousMonk 19:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"There's no shortage of instances of ID's critics arguing that positing a designer creates the paradox of who designed the designer." I agree, but there seems to be a bit of a shortage for the particular viewpoint you want in there (the viewpoint regarding irreducible complexity). My history has to do with removing original research and enforcing WP:CITE, which you have so blatantly ignored. And please stop with the name calling. This is getting tiresome. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to your own opinion, just not your own facts. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Other than this page, I haven't seen the "who designed the designer?" argument used against Irreducible Complexity. Unless someone can come up with a better citation for it than the one currently linked in the article, I don't see any other option than to remove the section entirely. BradC 18:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, irreducible complexity is a type of complexity, a subset of complexity. IC being a subset of complexity, in "If complex things require designers, then what intelligence designed the intelligent designer?" complexity subsumes types of complexity, like irreducible complexity. As a type of complexity, IC is not a special case; any criticism of the reasoning that complexity implies or requires a Designer (as both Behe and Dembski insist) will also apply to subtypes of complexity. Simanek makes the link between IC and the designer paradox: [21] The cite is relevant. FeloniousMonk 19:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Simanek links IC to the designer paradox here:

1. We observe in nature regular patterns and structures of incredible complexity. These are well-suited to their purpose and function.
2. Among living things, some of these are of "irreducible complexity", that is, they have at least three component parts which, if any one were absent, would destroy the functionality of the organism.
3. All of this is clear evidence of design. Such complexity could not have arisen by chance—by random events.
4. Designed things must have had a designer, and that designer had a very high intelligence. Therefore, the entire universe and everything in it had an intelligent designer.

This is followed by his deconstructing each point in turn. You can't get to number 4 without goint through number 2 beforehand. FeloniousMonk 19:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if you found the paradox in this person's personal web page (and the list you put above does not seem to describe the paradox in question) there are some WP:RS issues with using personal websites (like Simanek's) for secondary sources. Also note there are some WP:NPOV Wikipedia policy issues on viewpoints. Is this viewpoint on irreducible complexity a majority view? Then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; which this website clearly is not. If this viewpoint on irreducible complexity is a significant minority view, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; which this website is also not. If this viewpoint is a an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That's not my own "tendentious" objection, that's Wikipedia policy. Read WP:NPOV yourself if you don't believe me.

Felonious, you may think your irreducible complexity viewpoint is a logical derivation from the "who designed the designer" objection, but so far this viewpoint appears to be your own personal (and disputed) analysis, and it seems this should not be included due to Wikipedia policy on these matters. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. Nice try. I've never said I believe irreducible complexity is a derivation from the "who designed the designer" arguement. I've said irreducible complexity is a subset of complexity.

"this person's personal web page" Again, nice try. It's his university page. Simanek is a physics professor at Lock Haven University, and his writing here about ID (and in turn IC) is part of his lectures [22] which are by definition acceptable per WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 20:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You completely glossed over WP:NPOV Wikipedia policy issues on viewpoints, which invalidates this as a suitable source for the viewpoint under discussion. Simanek is not a prominent adherent, nor can his web pages be considered commonly accepted reference texts. Yes, Simanek is a physics professor, but it seems to be his own personal web page nonetheless. Is this article peer-reviewed by Lock Haven University? Then you'd have WP:RS, but you still wouldn't have gotten pass WP:NPOV Wikipedia policy issues on viewpoints. If it is not peer-reviewed by the university, if it is his own personal self-published web page that is merely hosted by the university, I'm not convinced it passes WP:RS. And again, there's that Wikipedia policy regarding viewpoints... --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOVUW isn't relevant here. Guettarda 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV has relevance because it clearly states what viewpoints are allowable (see here). So far, FeloniousMonk's proposed viewpoint on irreducible complexity doesn't seem to fit policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You should be the last person here lecturing others on policy, considering your history of POV pushing. As for my "proposed viewpoint," I'm not proposing a viewpoint. I'm just saying the content is accurate as cited. It is you who is proposing something here, the removal of cited content, which neatly coincides with your history of multiple attempts to remove content that is critical of ID at a number of ID related articles. FeloniousMonk 21:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my phantom history of POV pushing, and you're continual refusal to cite specific examples of my alleged misdeeds. Personal attacks aside, the "viewpoint" you want to remain is the argument against irreducible complexity that's on the Wikipedia entry here. Accuse me all you want, but (under Wikipedia policy) it seems that you must either (1) find the viewpoint under a commonly accepted reference text or (2) find a prominent adherent who has this viewpoint. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please. Again, you misrepresent the facts. Simanek is recognized as a notable critic of ID: [23] FeloniousMonk 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Being able to find his name on Google doesn't prove anything. Didn't you dispute that the "Intelligent Design Network" is not a prominent source even though--when you put "intelligent design" in Google--that organization comes up first on the list?[24] --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick read beyond the first result [25] demonstates that Simanek is often cited by others on the topic of ID, so he is indeed "notable." FeloniousMonk 21:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick read beyond the first result of Tisthammerw + "ontological argument" comes up with nearly a thousand hits[26] (many times more than FeloniousMonk + "ontological argument" and actually 44% the amount of hits for Simanek + "intelligent design") also shows I am cited online by others on the topic of the ontological argument; (chiefly because of my nice self-published web page on the topic). Tisthammerw + science also appears more than half a thousand times [27], chiefly methinks because of my nice web page on science. Look past the first listing and you'll see I'm cited online there too (e.g. [28] <-- cited by a prominent ID group!, [29], and [30]). Can we agree that Google is not a reliable indicator for how "prominent" an adherent is? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Another red herring. Thanks for making my point for me. It's not the number of results, but the relevance of the results that determine notability. Again, digging into the google results shows that Simanek is a notable critic of ID. Should have to post each of those links individually for your personal review? I don't think so. FeloniousMonk 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of my hits were quite relevant too (I gave examples above). My point is that the hits of a search engine is not a reliable source regarding how prominent of an adherent he is. Let's put aside self-published personal web pages for now. How many books on intelligent design has Donald E. Simanek published? Is Donald E. Simanek a leader of a prominent anti-ID organization? Did he play a notable role in a prominent court case involving intelligent design? Has he done anything of the sort? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, congrats on having a notable pro-ID resource, ARN, cite your writings.[31] Luckliy for you not all sources of information on the topic have pesky prohibitions on original research.[32] FeloniousMonk 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; but bear in mind that the web page is not really original research (in the context of how Wikipedia defines it) since it has multitudinous citations to other people's ideas. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You may cite others, but any conclusions, inferences, etc. you draw do indeed constitute original research. Particularly considering that they fall well outside the scientific mainstream. FeloniousMonk 22:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There is actually very little in the web page that is "my" original thinking. Falsificationism, the Duhem-Quine problem, the underdermination of theories etc. none of that is mine. Speaking of which, your own original conclusions, inferences ... --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, Simanek is not a physics professor at Lock Haven University--at least not anymore. If you look at the web page you referred to be you'd find that he's an emeritus professor, i.e. he is retired from professional life but permitted to retain the honorary title; and this still appears to be his own self-published work on his personal web page even if his old university is allowing him to host it there. Check again what WP:RS has to say about self-published sources and personal web pages. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A red herring. Being retired has no bearing on the reliability of him as a source or the notability of his writings. FeloniousMonk 21:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not, but you (unknowingly) wrote a falsehood about his position I wanted to set the record straight. What would have a bearing, of course, is if the cited source is a self-published personal web page and if the individual is not a prominent ID opponent (Google searches notwithstanding). --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether I misrepresented his position is a matter of opinion, not fact. FeloniousMonk 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact: you said "Simanek is a physics professor at Lock Haven University." Fact: Simanek is not a physics professor at Lock Haven University (anymore). The mistake you made was minor, so I don't really blame you all that much. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, STOP. 95% of this is entirely beside the point.

I'll accept Simanek's credentials at face value as a known opponent of ID, because that's not really the issue

FeloniousMonk--I see the thread of connection you are citing from Simanek's page, BUT I still have a couple of issues:

1. It's still a distant connection. Let's follow the logic. Irreducible Complexity is one of the arguments for an Intelligent Designer --> The belief in a designer raises the philosophical question: Who designed the designer? You could substitute any of the arguments made for ID, and it would still hold just as well. Therefore, this belongs on the ID page, not the IC page.

2. Even if you DID think it belongs on this page, the resulting Wikipedia paragraph has LITTLE to do with Simanek's argument:

The most basic philosophical criticism of irreducible complexity is that it defeats its own purpose. Namely, that either the designer of supposedly irreducibly complex objects is irreducibly complex and hence requires a further designer-of-the-designer (ad infinitum) to create the designer, or that the designer is not irreducibly complex, and can be reduced to naturalistic explanation.

This is NOT Simanek's argument. He doesn't say "if irreducible complexity requires a designer, is the designer himself irreducibly complex?" He says: "If complex things require designers, then what intelligence designed the intelligent designer?" which is a more traditional form of the argument. If you can re-word this paragraph to more smoothly tie the two ideas together, I wouldn't object to the section staying on the page.

BradC 04:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, "if irreducible complexity requires a designer, is the designer himself irreducibly complex?" is clearly a corollary of "If complex things require designers, then what intelligence designed the intelligent designer?"

Simanek correctly lays out the issue as: If design requires a designer, then what designer designed the designer? It's a basic tenet of the teleological argument that complexity = design. ID claims a certain type of complexity, irreducible complexity = design. Looking at "If complex things require designers, then what intelligence designed the intelligent designer?" and knowing that irreducible complexity is a type of complexity, then a fortiori, "If irreducibly complex things require designers, then what intelligence designed the intelligent designer?" Insisting it's not seems to me exercise in splitting hairs and denying the obvious.

That irreducible complexity is a corollary of complexity is widely recognized by ID critics: "Since any designing intelligence of IC/CSI must a fortiori be complex/specified," [33] If complexity = design and 'design requires a designer' then any criticism of either will apply to its corollaries. The passage as it stands accurately reflects a common criticism of IC. FeloniousMonk 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Felonious, you said:

"Um, "if irreducible complexity requires a designer, is the designer himself irreducibly complex?" is clearly a corollary of "If complex things require designers, then what intelligence designed the intelligent designer?"

But this is your own personal analysis, and thus seems to be original research under Wikipedia, which is not allowed. Besides, here's a simple counterexample: we humans are not irreducibly complex, and yet can design irreducibly complex machines. Even though the designer of the complex machine is complex, it is not irreducibly complex. Your claim of a corollary is flawed and non sequitur. More importantly, under Wikipedia policy this viewpoint regarding the “corollary” cannot be substantiated under Wikipedia policy regarding viewpoints.

If you can find a citation of a leading ID opponent making the argument, great. I'll allow it. But so far you haven't done that. (The citation you provided is neither one of a prominent ID opponent nor does it actually contain the said argument.) Your new citation is a message comment posted on a blog, which is not permissible under WP:RS (WP:RS explicitly says, "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources") and I doubt user Hiero5ant constitutes a leading ID opponent. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Wade, but it's not my own personal analysis, it's also made here: [34] Are you actually bothering reading any of this and just not getting it, or are you just tossing out spitballs in the hope one or two will stick? I've never said Hiero5ant was a prominent ID critic, nor is he being used as one here, only to show that the line of reasoning is familiar to ID proponents and not our original research. FeloniousMonk 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

(1) That still doesn't contain the corollary you mentioned, even if it does contain the viewpoint in the Wikipedia entry, (2) it is still not a permissible citation under WP:RS (since it is a message comment from a blog), (3) we thus still have no citation of a prominent adherent to show that the irreducible complexity viewpoint under discussion is suitable for Wikipedia. And according to WP:V and WP:CITE, the onus is on you if you wish the challenged material to remain. Can we please stick with Wikipedia policy? Under WP:RS, self-published personal websites and message comments on blogs are simply not going to do the trick here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Update FeloniousMonk seems to have finally agreed to remove the suspected original research.[35] --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not because it was OR (and it wasn't) I simply replaced a weaker argument with a more cogent one. If the person who contributed the original argument wants to re-add it, they're free to do so. FeloniousMonk 04:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research? If that's true, I don't suppose you have more than a self-published personal web page (which, upon examination, didn't even contain the viewpoint in question) or a message comment from a blog? (Note: both sources violate WP:RS.) I don't suppose you have a citation from a prominent ID opponent to demonstrate that this is a an admissible viewpoint under Wikipedia policy? --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)