Talk:Irreducible complexity

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jim62sch (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 4 February 2006 (→Ec5618 solves the impasse: hmmm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:18, 4 February 2006 by Jim62sch (talk | contribs) (→Ec5618 solves the impasse: hmmm)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

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)

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)

Category:

Misplaced Pages controversial topics

Archives

Ec5618 solves the impasse

Recapping

subheader