Talk:Irreducible complexity: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:49, 2 March 2006 editTisthammerw (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,242 edits →A Proposed Compromise: The problem remains.← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:32, 2 March 2006 edit undoJim62sch (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →A Proposed Compromise: no objectionNext edit →
Line 598:		Line 598:

	:::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 ] 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? --] 17:49, 2 March 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 ] 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? --] 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.

	==New intro==		==New intro==

Revision as of 23:32, 2 March 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

See Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid.

Ec5618 solves the impasse

And with a few simple jabs at his keyboard, Ec5618 solves the impasse in an accurate and fair way . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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:

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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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):

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 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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.

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:

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:

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). 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:

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)

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:

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)

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 , appealing to an imagined consensus. You have also removed the first RfC I put on the topic. 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):

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 Misplaced Pages: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. ... 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 Misplaced Pages policy, well, perhaps it is, but I feel it is important. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is the only place on the web where these accusations are made. Interesting reading, though - JustinWick 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

IR as a term vs. a concept

A few comments on this issue.

First, here is a reference to an earlier than Behe use of the term, dating to 1986:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/dover_trial_plaintiffs_counsel.html

this is fairly specific to IDC and not as circumspect as von Bertalanffy, who may have been speaking of the requirement to analyze whole systems, and not necessarily the inability for a system's parts to function. I would agree with comments above that von Bertalanffy is not relevant here.

Second, the concept of irreducible complexity is critically and fundamentally linked to Intelligent Design Creationism to such a degree that the concept of irreducible complexity, if not the term, goes back as far as IDC goes, which, according to John Haught (referenced on page 24 of the Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover Area School District memorandum decision of December 20, 2005) goes back to the Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.

Third, I fully agree that William Paley fully articulated the IDC argument as an argument about irreducible complexity, in the 19th century.

I hope I did this right it is my first attempt at contributing...

G. Laden

Unfortunately, per WP:V and WP:RS blogs are not a suitable source. Discovery Institute blogs doubly so, considering their well-documented history of exaggeration and inflation. FeloniousMonk 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good addition if we find a WP:V source, however. I'm going to go looking. Would be interesting. KillerChihuahua 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad regarding the blog source, I don't know what I was thinking. But yes, this is a clue to run something down and I will also look. Nonethless, I am not convinced that the reference to von B's concept of whole systems is really something that falls in the intellectual thread that is being discussed here, and earlier concepts such as I refer to (not citing blogs I quickly add!) are more relevant.

I've re-read much of Paley's argument just today and I am not convinced that irreducible complexity is a point he was making. I think he is talking about something else. When he looks at a rock, he sees something that does not need explanation, but when he looks at a watch, he sees something designed (adapted, his term). Of course, the rock does need explanation, but apparently he was not interested in geology. His arguement really is in part argument from ignorance and in part argument from being, simply, in awe. Darwin, of course, was also in awe of nature, but chose to pursue explanation through science. (G.Laden) GregLaden 02:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity is the idea that a given structure effectively ceases to function if any of the various components are removed. Paley doesn't describe the concept exactly (as far as I know) but we have a verifiable cited quote of him saying something similar, "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. Though not identical, the concept expressed here is quite similar to Behe's irreducible complexity (which is perhaps why Behe quoted Paley). More importantly (and the reason I brought it up in the first place), this cited quote of Paley is far more similar to irreducible complexity than any verifiable citation of von Bertalanffy (see the RfC section where I give the von Bertalanffy quote). It thus seemed improper to credit an "early form" of irreducible complexity to von Bertalanffy (and not Paley), claiming that "Behe credits philosopher William Paley for the original concept, not Von Bertalanffy" while leaving out how similar Paley's idea was to Behe's. Such a thing can easily give the false impression regarding who claimed what. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack removed per WP:NPA. FeloniousMonk 22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack are you talking about? Would you mind pointing it out? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be the nastygram you left here which has been removed at least twice, Wade. KillerChihuahua 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am perfectly aware of which one of my posts FeloniousMonk has deleted KillerChihuahua. My question, where in that post is the personal attack? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

dense. Jim62sch 00:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You're calling me dense? Who's really the one making personal attacks here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, read the link -- it's part of Wiki, advice not a PA. Jim62sch 19:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the link, but calling me "dense" still sounds like a personal attack--certainly more so than the phantom personal attack I allegedly made that nobody seems willing to point out to me. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, are you just funnin' with us, or are you for real? If you can't figure out how the following is a PA and wholly inappropriate, then ... well ... I don't even know what to say: PA on editor. Thest I can do is throw up my hands and shake my head in disbelief. Sorry, Wade, but that's reality. Jim62sch 22:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you said, "If you can't figure out how the following is a PA and wholly inappropriate, then ... well ... I don't even know what to say" how about you telling me what the alleged personal attack is? My posts have been removed without explanation of what the alleged personal attack is, even when I explicitly request for such an explanation in the post description. If these removals of my posts are not simply disruptive deletions resulting from old grudges, why don't you explain yourself here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, reinserting the PA on this page would have the same effect as restating the PA. Scientia tela non est. Jim62sch 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So you're not going to explain why you deleted my post because doing so would be offensive? That's why you're not going to point out where the alleged personal attack is in this post? --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User contacted via e-mail. Jim62sch 12:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum how about this. Simply tell me if you consider the following to be a "personal attack": FeloniousMonk violated Misplaced Pages policy by reinserting challenged material without a cite as can be seen with this link. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

First WP:CITE notes that, "This page is a style guide for Misplaced Pages." It is not a "policy". Second, as that comment is far less inflammatory, and not included as part of a post to a newbie, the sole purpose of which clearly appears to have been a chance to unleash an ad hom on FM, it is not a personal attack. Would it be better if you noted it directly to FM, yes, but at least now the pretense and innuendo are gone. Jim62sch 12:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You left out some things Jim. From WP:CITE, "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." That's why I said FeloniousMonk violated Misplaced Pages policy. The purpose of this this post was not to provide a personal attack, only to reply to newbie (G. Laden) whom FeloniousMonk chided for not recognizing Misplaced Pages policy. Felonious seemed to make something like a tu quoque remark. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wade, you really need to give it a break. I explained to you privately why it was a personal attack. I can't even figure it out why you felt the need to keep dredging it up. Additionally, the cite issue is not meant to be carried to the riduclous extremes you want to take it to. For example, I could rip through this article and require cites for Behe actually working at Lehigh University or actually being a biochemist, etc.

Additionally, your insistance on verbatim cites is more disruptive than benefificial. Many editors have wasted appreciable time on trying to placate the whims of a contentious editor who has made a pastime out of lurking on the ID and IC talkpages, presenting term-paper length theses to ask simple questions, while having made at most two (out of 6 total) edits of any value on both article pages combined.

Correct me if I'm wrong Jim, but you didn't explain why it was a personal attack. You merely pointed out the section that you considered a personal attack (the part where I pointed out FeloniousMonk violated Misplaced Pages policy, the apparent reason why that post was censored). The only reason I kept “dredging it up” was because no explanation was given to me why the post was being censored (an allegation of a personal attack, but nobody wanted to tell me where that was), and when something like that happens I want an explanation. Wouldn’t you? If you don't want for us to discuss this issue further, don't bring it up.

How am I taking WP:CITE to "riduclous extremes"? The issue is fairly simple. There has been challenged material (attributing the term/concept of irreducible complexity to von Bertalanffy--an attribution I suspected to be incorrect). After nearly a month of waiting for a citation, I removed the challenged material in accordance with WP:CITE, which says, "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." I'd like you to explain to me how my decision to remove the challenged material qualifies as a "riduclous extreme." I am not asking for cites regarding undisputed things such as Behe being a biochemist, only things for which I suspect to be inaccurate information (as the von Bertalanffy claim). If anything, editors violating WP:CITE to reinsert the uncited challenged material is what qualifies a ridiculous extreme. My attempt to make the article abide by Misplaced Pages policy is not.

Or perhaps you're referring to the current citation. When I checked up on the provided citation, the concept of irreducible complexity was nowhere to be found. I am not objecting because it is not "verbatim," but because the following quote:

...is simply not the same as the concept (irreducible complexity:) of a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed, and thus the quote does not support the claim that von Bertalanffy came up with this concept (of irreducible complexity). Bertalanffy instead is describing a different concept: deriving the system's properties and modes of action from the ensemble of its components. Also note that I am not entirely alone in my concerns. While the people who have stopped by from the RfC do not necessarily endorse all my views (JustinWick is against intelligent design), they seem to agree on a few things. Rick Norwood said, "The reference to Von Bertalanffy is not relevent to this article." JustinWick says that at this stage, "interpretation of Von Bertalanffy's work " is "original research," since no citation from a reputable expert can (yet) be found to support this, and furthermore says, "I move that the original research material be excised from the article until a verifyable source can be located." Another editor named Matt seems to agree with Justin. And so far, no such verifiable source can be given of any reputable expert who credits von Bertalanffy with irreducible complexity. All we have is a quote with a rather dubious interpretation.

You brought up that I have made at most two edits. Suppose that is true. Why is this? Even my most basic attempts to improve the article (such as removing a single piece of uncited, challenged material regarding von Bertalanffy) have met with stiff resistance by editors who are willing to violate Misplaced Pages policy to suit their cause. We've seen it happen right here. FeloniousMonk violated WP:CITE and then Ec5618 . Such behavior is more disruptive than beneficial and seriously impedes any real progress, but perhaps such behavior is to be expected when articles on controversial topics like these are written and policed by its bitter opponents.

By the way Jim, did you see my proposed compromise? Or would this compromise also be something you call an "extreme"? --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum I just checked my e-mail Jim. You said you told me "privately why it was a personal attack," but at the time I only read your first e-mail. Were you referring to your second e-mail? The one in which you called me a jackass? Because I didn't see much of an explanation there either. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Back to War and Peace-length scatography that no one will read, eh? I skimmed it, more or less moreof the same stuff you've written before redux, and really not worth much effort commenting upon. Oh, since you felt the need to mention private e-mails (in vio of Wiki-rules), I might as well note that I also observed that you are "intellectually stilted" and that "you have much growing up to do". Oh, BTW, don't try to bring up the NPA rule: you decided to reveal the contents of a private e-mail, I just thought I'd join in for funsies. Jim62sch 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim, you said, "you felt the need to mention private e-mails (in vio of Wiki-rules)" what rule is that? You mentioned our private e-mails before I did, so I had little reason to believe it was against any rules. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not the exact content, Wade. Jim62sch 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, have you always been reticent to let a topic/subject/issue go? Jim62sch 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you Jim? I don't see you conceding this matter either. Also, I'm still waiting for you to show me that Wiki-rule you were talking about. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:10, 22 February 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:".

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.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1952). Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern Biological and Scientific Thought, pg 148 ISBN 1131792424.

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.....

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Original Research?!?

No, I did not copy-past this statement. But is counting definitions is original research? There are two definitions given.

Or do you want a source for the fact that two different definitions are not neccessarily equivalent? Markus Schmaus 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Markus, I agree with what you wrote: if you can source the comment, you can reinsert it.

Thanks for asking about this on the discussion page -- I wish more folks would do that. :) Jim62sch 02:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by source?

I wrote

Those two definitions are not neccessarily equivalent. A system might fullfill the conditions of the first definition and not fit into the second definition, and vice-versa.

I have to addmit, that this was wrong, the section gives not two but three definitions (two by Behe and one by Dembski). The source for this is the very same section.

I also stated that the definitions are not neccessarily equivalent. The source for this is common sense. If definitions have a different wording, they could still mean the same, but they could also have a different meaning.

I don't know what kind of source you would like to have. Markus Schmaus 14:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Quote Dembski or Behe or both -- or find a similar statement somewhere. No one ever said this stuff was easy. :) Jim62sch 16:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is IC doomed?

Two of the main arguments for IC are essentially disproven here Jim62sch 00:18, 15 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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:

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).

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.

New intro

My intention was to clarify, not to make a stronger or weaker argument for either side of this controversy. Scientists dismiss Behe's notion as pseudoscientific hogwash, right? If so, the intro should clarly state this. --Uncle Ed 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does, it's just a bit more subtle than saying, "IC is hogwash". No offense, but the current intro seems pretty clear -- that's not to say it's perfect, but it's pretty much on the mark. Jim62sch 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Behe's "Defect"

I've done a bit of delving into it, and I've become convinced that the following portion of the intro, though purportedly supportable, is more than a bit misleading:

In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."

My primary concern is that the typical reader reads "defect" as being, basically "huge, gaping flaw". "O my gosh", the reader thinks, "he's admitted that his theory was hogwash".

In fact, however, Behe described the "defect" as a subtle "asymmetry" that was "not serious enough to fix".

(I also have a problem with the fact that Igenta wants me to actually pay $40 to read the original "Reply to my Critics". And the version of the article archived at the Discovery Institute does not contain this phrase--it appears to be a shorter version of the original article. Does anyone have another source for this article that contains the "defect" paragraph? I'd like to see it in context if we could.)

I realize that the quote in this Misplaced Pages article is taken nearly wholesale from the Kitzmiller decision, but let's see what the trial transcript itself says:

Q. And in the first full paragraph, you repeat some of the text that we just saw from Darwin's Black Box about why irreducible complex systems are obstacles for Darwinian explanations?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you write, However, commentary by Robert Pennock and others has made me realize that there is a weakness in that view of irreducible complexity. The current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system.

And then continuing on after footnote 5, you say, The difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems, it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place.

Thus, there is an asymmetry between my current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. I hope to repair this defect in future work. That's what you wrote, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You haven't repaired that defect, have you, Professor Behe?

A. No, I did not judge it serious enough to do so yet.

Q. So the defect you identified was, you were starting with the function and working backwards, removing parts, correct?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And natural selection is actually operating in the opposite direction, you start with the pre-cursors and then develop until you get to the system you're studying?

A. Yes, that would be a more difficult task.

Q. That's the asymmetry?

A. Yes.

Q. And that asymmetry has not been repaired?

A. That asymmetry is not really relevant to biological circumstances.

Its pretty obvious, reading it in context, that this is not Behe admitting a fatal flaw in his theory or something like that. His original definition simply was worded in a way that allowed his critics a technical nit--he certainly believed that the problems that irreducible complexity presented to natural selection were still obvious and valid.

I propose dropping this sentence from the article entirely. I certainly give the average Misplaced Pages credit for understanding complex issues, but I don't think we want to set aside the space to go through the above discussion, and I contend that the sentence by itself is grossly prejudicial.

BradC 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading the same text convinces me only that Behe was trying to talk his way around a "huge, gaping flaw" in his work and that he was trying to carefully choose the words that would be least damaging to his reputation without quite perjuring himself. His alleged judgment that this flaw is not serious enough for him to address is uncompelling. It is, to me and to many others, a patently fatal flaw in his theory. If you have a proposed rewrite, let's consider it. Simply dropping the sentence, however, would seem to be a disservice to our readers. Rossami (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether this is a "huge, gaping flaw" seems to be open to debate and interpretation. BradC has a good point about the sentence by itself being prejudicial (to at least some degree) and a bit misleading to what Behe actually believes. Consider the current wording:

In 2001, Michael Behe admitted that his work had a "defect" and does not actually address "the task facing natural selection."

But Behe (right or wrong) still considers irreducible complexity to be a relevant and serious obstacle for Darwinian evolution, and yet the current wording of the entry seems to suggest something different. If we are to follow WP:NPOV it would be best I think to simply say exactly what this defect is (and what Behe believes) and let the reader judge how "serious" it is. That way we are presenting the facts without taking sides. Here’s an example of what the text might look like.

Behe claims there is a weakness in the view of irreducible complexity. The difficult task for Darwinian evolution would not be to remove parts from a sophisticated pre-existing system, it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place; thus there is an asymmetry between the current definition of irreducible complexity and the task facing natural selection. This asymmetry is what he believes to be a defect he hopes to repair in his future work; though he does not consider it a serious one and believes it has no practical relevance to biological circumstances.

This way we are laying out all the cards on the table as to what Behe actually believes (giving no false impressions like the current wording of the sentence does), and letting the reader decide if Behe is right about the seriousness of this defect. Citations would of course be provided. And if there are any prominent ID proponents giving a rebuttal to this, they can be quoted/inserted if verifiable citations for them can be given. But I do not what Behe's views (right or wrong) to be stated in such a way that would give a false impression.

Any comments or objections for this solution? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Random Mutations

The website randommutations.com has a simple model to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution doesn't work. Using an English sentence with words and letters to represent a strand of DNA and its genes and genetic letter, the model allows the online user to mutate the letters and see what happens. Sure enough, the mutations accumulate and obliterate all sense and meaning, thus proving Darwin wrong.

The is however a flaw or two in the model. In each generation, there is only one offspring, and it is not possible to CHOOSE between offspring that are preferable in some way as against offspring that are less preferable. A choice of one option is, it is humbly submitted, is no choice at all. This resembles Hobson's choice or Soviet-style elections.

One might also add, that only one sentence at a time is allowed to participate in the mutation process. It would be more realistic to have population of several sentences.

Tabletop 10:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Category: