Talk:Irreducible complexity/Wade Tisthammers RFCs

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

text: Dig, Grasshopper. :) Start with this: explanation  Jim62sch 23:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GST and IC

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

message: I am bringing this discussion back from /Archive01, hoping for a consensual decision (I had removed the section, but it was reverted due to insufficient discussion).
Rend 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Behe himself says that designing life (as for irreducibly complex systems) requires a lot of intelligence but not the supernatural, and thus the section appears to be rather out of place.  As Rend said, it seems to be a philosophical issue related to God paradoxes and theodicy.  Perhaps more applicably, this argument smells suspiciously of original research.  I suggest this challenged material be removed, especially if no citation can be provided of a leading ID opponent making this argument.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't say. What a surprise... FeloniousMonk 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I do tend to be strict about citations and original research.  But there appears to be no reason to think that Rend’s concerns are unjustified.  Even if we throw out Wikipeida policy regarding citations and original research, the subsection does seem out of place here, particularly given Behe's views regarding irreducible complexity and the supernatural.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You can resurrect this crusade as many times as you wish, but the bottom line is that the God and Irreducible Complexity section of the article will stay. Jim62sch 21:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not.  The "God" part has been removed.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm afraid I have to agree.  Behe may have been the originator of this concept (at least in its latest incarnation) and may be attempting to distance his theories from the supernatural but many others have explicitly linked the concepts.  It would be a disservice to readers to attempt to hide that particular aspect of the controversy.  Rossami (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said, "but many others have explicitly linked the concepts."  But if that is true, if this argument is not original research (this argument is strikingly similar to another that I had removed from the intelligent design section on the grounds that it constituted original research) a citation for this challenged claim should be provided of a leading ID proponent making this argument.  For the moment, we can ignore the fact that Behe's actual beliefs are that designing life requires the a lot of intelligence, it does not require the supernatural.  (Little is to be gained by attacking views opponents do not hold, or by mischaracterizing the opposition).  I feel that if it should be proven that this objection is not original research, Behe's actual views should be mentioned so as to not give a false impression.  So far, the word "God" has been excluded so that does not appear necessary right now.  For the moment, WP:CITE and WP:V demands that a citation be given for this challenged material.  Original research is not permissible (among other things, one cannot simply insert one’s own personal arguments against a belief one doesn’t like into Wikipeida entries).  If this objection is indeed "the most basic philosophical criticism" it shouldn't be too hard to find a leading ID proponent who makes this argument, right?  So why has WP:CITE been ignored for over a month now despite my request of a citation?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The content you tried to delete as "uncited" is completely consonant with other cited content at Intelligent_design#The_designer_or_designers and Intelligent_designer#Criticism. As such, it's sufficiently supported by other cited content. Interestingly, this is exactly the same sort of content you disrupted the ID article for months over, implying that the campaign continues... FeloniousMonk 18:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If trying to get the article conform to Wikipedia policy and enforcing WP:CITE is "disruptive" then I'm guilty.  Now if this argument is not original research, can you please provide me a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes this argument?  I checked up on the citation in the section and couldn't find the said argument anywhere.  Can you provide me a quote to where it is?  You said, “completely consonant with other cited content” but merely being consonant is not enough; there has to be a citation containing the actual argument.  Since you provided no such cited source, I was well within my bounds in enforcing WP:CITE, which explicitly says, “any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.” --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your idea of conforming an article to policy has very slight relationship to actual policy and more to do with your personal POV and original research, experience has taught us. The content is now cited. Of course you'll reject the cite, as you have at other articles, such is the cycle of Wade, but it is cited.  FeloniousMonk 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're accusing me of original research?  Can you point out one specific example of where I inserted original research into the article?  In contrast, this section appears to be original research.  If this citation really is valid, if the argument is not original research, why can't you provide me a quote from the source that contains the said argument?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wade wrote "this argument is strikingly similar to another that I had removed from the intelligent design section on the grounds that it constituted original research" - I have no idea what you are talking about, since the same material (albeit differently worded) is still in the ID article.  I remember you complaining that no citation was good enough for you unless there was a DI member using the exact phrasing... and other such silly complaints.  Guettarda 18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point to me a specific example of where I said, "no citation was good enough for you unless there was a DI member using the exact phrasing."  The "same material" did not appear to be present last time I looked at the article.  Could you tell me exactly where it is?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you've said something along those lines many times at Talk:Intelligent design. There's several archived talk pages entirely dedicated to your tendentious objections. FeloniousMonk 19:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet it seems you cannot find any specific examples to adduce your accusations.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wade, why is it that FM, Guettarda and I recall you making comments along those lines, and you don't?  Or do you really think any of us are going to waste valuable time looking for the exact quotes?  Jim62sch 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly?  No, I do not expect you to support your accusations.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_20, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_21, Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive_21A. And that's just the ID article. FeloniousMonk 17:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've pointed to whole archives with numerous posts and topics by many people; how about you quote a specific block of text where I allegedly did any of the misdeeds you are accusing me of?  Or is it that you cannot find any credible evidence to support your personal attacks against me?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (ri) Wade, stop being pompous and lazy.  If FM took the time to find the archives (something I'd not have bothered to do), you can look through them (i.e., read them) to find the quotes.  BTW, Wade, they were not personal attacks.  A number of us recalled you making such statements, thus rather than attacks they were statements of truth -- but, you probably know that as part of your m.o. is to cry foul whenever you don't like something but have no real defence.  Jim62sch 10:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said, "A number of us recalled you making such statements" and yet their memories cannot be verified with any specific examples of where I said "such statements"?  The burden of proof upon making accusations lies on the accuser.  It is not "lazy" of me to demand that people back up their accusations.  If anything, it is lazy for the accuser to attack a fellow Wikipedia editor (regarding things like original research) without bothering to provide evidence.  My defense?  The failure for the accuser to provide any verifiable evidence (as a specific quote of what I said and where I said it, as opposed to pointing to entire archives with many posts by many people and essentially saying something to the effect of "the evidence is in there somewhere, but I'm not going to trouble myself to tell you where it is or what exactly he said and did...").  --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone attacked you Wade.  Anyway, just for funsies I started to go through the archives, searching on "wade".  I only got but so far, as reading the same thing said sideways 900 times created in me such a spirit of ennui that I nearly suffered a narcoleptic fit.  Jim62sch 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
God
 The Designer and Irreducible Complexity