Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-10 Irreducible complexity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offer 1.5 Comments by others 1.6 Discussion 2 Case closed

[edit] Mediation

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Wade A. Tisthammer 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Irreducible Complexity

Who's involved?

Wade A. Tisthammer, FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, Jim62sch, possibly others.

What's going on?

The claim that Ludwig von Bertalanffy came up with the concept of irreducible complexity is challenged; most particularly the cite used to support it. In went through an RfC (Rick Norwood, JustinWick, and Matt) in which it was apparently agreed that the cite does not adequately support the claim in question, but the people "policing" the article are unwilling to have the von Bertalanffy claim removed.

To put the von Bertalanffy text (which is what the citation for the claim is referring to) in context with a previous paragraph (of the previous page):

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

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

Nice insight, but it has been argued that this is simply not the same concept as a structure ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed (which is how Behe defined irreducible complexity, confer page 39 of Darwin's Black Box). 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) does one seem to find the concept of irreducible complexity.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like to remove the claim entirely, or else have a compromise (see below) in which both Paley and von Bertalanffy are quoted so the reader can judge for himself/herself which (if anyone) came up with an "early concept" of irreducible complexity.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

No need for discretion. The talk page will do fine.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Yes.

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Compromise offer

Here is a compromise I have proposed:

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

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

The answer is simple. The properties and modes of action of higher levels are not explicable by the summation of properties and modes of action of their components taken in isolation. If, however, we know the ensemble of the components and the relations existing between them, then the higher levels are derivable from the components. ^[1]

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). In Paley's book Natural Theology, he says the following:

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. ^[2]

This compromise would, I think, allow the reader to decide who (if anyone) came up with an "early concept" of irreducible complexity. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by others

• tisthammerw (talk · contribs) (who goes variously by Wade and Wade A. Tisthammer) has shown himself to be a chronic pro-intelligent design POV malcontent with a long history of disruption and ignoring both consensus and evidence while pushing his own particular brand of intelligent design POV at Second Law of Thermodynamics, Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity. Wade has a history of ignoring WP:CON and violating WP:POINT by repeatedly raising the same tendentious objections to well-supported article content and ignoring over and over and mischaracterizing or dismissing evidence when it is presented. Because of this he's earned a permanent place on the "crank list" of the regular long-term editors at these articles, including my own. I can't begin to count the innumerable manhours of good faith contributors he's wasted with bad faith objections, constantly shifting goalposts, and mendacious justifications for it all arising out of his own personal research found here: [1]. The only time I will spend on this editor is in minimizing his disruptions and cleaning up his messes; my experience has proved that anything else is a complete waste. FeloniousMonk 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Bertalanffy's Problems of Life: An Evaluation of Modern Biological and Scientific Thought predates Behe's Darwin's Black Box by 44 years: It's Bertalanffy who employs the concept of irreducible complexity in the common biological sense and it is Behe who has turned the concept around into a challenge of evolutionary biology. Bertalanffy says that complex systems must be examined as complete, irreducible systems in order to fully understand how they work. Behe says that irreducibly complex is a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. It's easy to see that there is a common thread that runs through both though their intended uses are distinct, and that the latter is clearly a derivative of the former. That means the article's content is accurate as it stands.
2. An endorsement of a particular side such as your's here is called arbitration, not mediation. To actually mediate a mediator must work toward a consensus through communication with all parties in a mutually agreeable manner, not issue sweeping rulings or endorsements.
3. Another hallmark mediation is the consent of all parties to have the issue mediated; I see no such consent here. In fact, none of the regular, long-term contributors to this article are interested in participating in any mediation with tisthammerw for the reasons I explained above.
4. Relevant rebuttals to tisthammerw's objections are found on the irreducible complexity talk page, there's no need to rehash it yet again here, particularly when the objections are ill-informed, POV driven and specious to begin with. FeloniousMonk 06:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"If he has mischaracterized anything, or left out any important details, please post to that effect here" - please consult the archives of the talk page of irreducible complexity and intelligent design for context on Wade's mischaracterisation. And as FM mentioned, please bear in mind that the role of the mediator is to try to get both sides to see each other's points, not to rule on the issue. Some sort of notification that this case was filed would be in order as well. Thanks. Guettarda 07:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please point to a specific example to adduce your accusations against me. --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum I see you have not done so. You cannot do point to specific examples, because your accusations against my character are groundless and serve little more than a smoke screen to cloud the real issue. I suggest that if you cannot back up the personal attacks you make with real examples, you (and anyone else who makes such attacks) should not make them. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I left a message on Tisthammerw's page indicating that I'd not be participing, as his inclusion of me on this issue was specious at best. See these diffs: [2][3][4][5][6][7]

Thus, any finding by the mediator is not binding on me. It is not binding on FM or Guettarda either as they did not agree to the mediation.

I would suggest that the mediator read up on what the rules are, what his/her job is and start from the beginning. Remember, jus like in the real world, a mediator is not an arbitrator: a mediator tries to get the sides to meet, and arbitrator makes rulings. Good things to keep in mind I'd say. Jim62sch 10:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I do not consider your contributions "specious." Let's not forget e.g. your interpretations of the quote in question [8] (an interpretation I disagree with, but your contribution was there). If nobody wants to try to mediate this and the opponents wish to still ignore the RfC's, should I simply go to arbitration? --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding accusations - I (Wade) didn't want to bring this up, but since FeloniousMonk opened the door with his little smear campaign against me...

FeloniousMonk has accused me of "long history of disruption and ignoring both consensus and evidence while pushing his own particular brand of intelligent design POV " but this seems to be a bit of a tu quoque objection. FeloniousMonk has ignored Wikipedia policy to suit his own point of view. Evidential example: he willfully ignored WP:CITE when he reinserted the challenged material on the irreducible complexity page without a citation.[9] In fact, this uncited challenged material had to do with the topic under discussion. And when I put up an RfC after FeloniousMonk ignored Wikipedia policy, he removed the RfC.[10] He has also ignored WP:NOR by inserting original research in the intelligent design article, replacing it with different original research when I objected.[11] Often times FeloniousMonk accuses me of igoring consensus. When I request him to provide evidence of consensus, he often times refuses (e.g. here).

For those who accuse me of violating WP:POINT I’d like to request one specific example of me doing this. Where exactly I have I done this (pointing to a Wikipedia entry with many archived discussions is not particularly verifiable unless one can pinpoint the location of where I allegedly did the misdeeds I am accused of)? Or is simply raising objections regarding violations of Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:CITE) considered disruptive? Can any one point to even one specific example of me mischaracterizing the evidence? Can anyone point out even one specific example of where I inserted my own personal original research in a Wikipedia entry? Can anyone point to a specific example of me violating WP:NPOV? The problem with controversial issues like these is that heated emotions can fog up mental perceptions, to the point where even a simple request of a citation for a challenged claim is perceived to be “one-sided propaganda” pushing (see here). I suspect that real evidence behind these attacks against me will not be provided.

My position is that, despite FeloniousMonk's claims, Bertalanffy neither uses the term nor the concept of irreducible complexity. But merely listening to the claims of both sides is not good enough to make an accurate judgment, methinks. I suggest all those reading this simply look at the cited quotes of Bertalanffy and Paley and judge for himself/herself whether this constitutes irreducible complexity (i.e. that a given structure ceases to function if any of the various components are removed). First, Bertalanffy,

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.

Whether this is the same concept as a structure effectively ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed, I’ll leave up to the reader. My own contention is that the concept Bertanlaffy describes here is very different (deriving the system's properties and modes of action from the ensemble of its components). Paley’s quote (which predates Bertalanffy by roughly a century):

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.

Which person (if anyone) has an “early concept” of irreducible complexity (a structure effectively ceasing to function if any of the various components are removed)? I contend that the Bertalanffy citation (which refers to the quote I provided) does not provide adequate basis for the claim that Bertalanffy came up with the concept of irreducible complexity. And since that is the only citation provided to support the challenged material, I move that the claim be removed or the compromise I put forth replace it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Wade, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't understand what complexity theory is and how it relates to IC. Everyone realises that. The fact that you don't see the connection, despite it being explained to you, is not grounds for deletion of material from the article. Guettarda 18:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what you seem to suggest, not everyone "realizes" that the quote genuinely supports the claim in question (take a look at the RfC remarks if you don't believe me, see also the what the mediator said before he bowed out). --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I have reviewed each party's arguments, and read a great deal of the Talk section on Irreducible Complexity as well as the article itself. I realize that this is a highly charged issue and that you have been through a mediator or two already, so bear with me if you feel like you are explaining things all over again. Though disputes tend to get hotter with time, please refrain from any further ad hominems on this page. Please remember that what is really at stake here is the accuracy of a wiki. That said, here is what appears that everyone agrees upon so far.

1. I can only mediate between parties that agree to be a part of the mediation. Jim62sch has expressly disclaimed any interest in being a part of this proceeding, and, unlike an arbitration proceeding, I cannot make parties come to the table. It appears that Wade A. Tisthammer and FeloniousMonk are the true participants in this disagreement. If either party can convince other interested parties to take part in this mediation, please have them post in the Comments by Others section, identifying themselves as willing parties to the mediation, before contributing to the discussion.
2. It appears that there is no dispute as to the accuracy of Bertalanffy and Paleys' writings or citations.
3. It appears that there is no dispute that both Bertalanaffy and Paley both promulgated ideas that are, to some degree correlative to Behe's and were promulgated prior to him (it is disputed that Behe's ideas are derivations therefrom).

Thus, the key issue is whether Bertalanaffy's and Paley's "summation of properties and relations" are ideas sufficiently similar to Behe's that they can legitimately said to be intellectual predecessors of Behe's thought. Please let me know if any of my assumptions of what the parties already agree upon are incomplete or misconstrue your position. At this point, I have one question for both sides that hopefully can help us see where we differ.

1. Wade A. Tisthammer, why do dispute referring to an idea that one must look beyond the summation of properties and relations is insufficiently developed or specific enough to be an intellectual predecessor of Behe's conception of irreducible complexity? Such references to rudimentary ideas as "prececessors" to modern thought are, in my experience, commonplace in the study of the history of ideas.
2. FeloniousMonk, what objections do you have to inserting Tisthammers proposed compromise into the Irreducible Complexity article?

Thanks a lot, both of you, for taking the time to participate. I hope we can all come to a satisfactory resolution of this dispute. --Quaere verum 03:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

(Wade speaking) For one thing, there is no evidence that Behe was even aware of von Bertalanffy's ideas, so it's difficult to verify whether this was indeed an intellectual predecessor. In contrast, Behe quoted Paley in his book Darwin's Black Box, so an "intellectual predecessor" link can be more tangibly made there. More to the point, the article credits von Bertalanffy with the concept of irreducible complexity (a viewpoint that encounters some problems with Wikipedia policy; more later). And while von Bertalanffy did suggest that one should look at the relationships between the components to infer how the system interacts at its higher levels, this is simply not the same concept as a structure ceasing to function if any of its components are removed (i.e. irreducible complexity). Therefore, attributing the concept of irreducible complexity to von Bertalanffy does not seem appropriate; and crediting the concept to von Bertalanffy gives a false impression to the readers. (An intellectual predecessor is one thing, attributing the concept is another.)

Also, (as another editor pointed out) the somewhat novel interpretation of von Bertalanffy's writing that he originated an "early concept" of irreducible complexity appears to be original research, since the claim can apparently be found nowhere else besides the Wikipedia entry. The viewpoint that von Bertalanffy did indeed come up with an “early concept” of irreducible complexity appears to be an extremely small minority (namely, a few Wikipedia editors) and would thus not be suitable given Wikipedia policy on what viewpoints to include. (Certainly, one should at least not present the viewpoint of this extremely small minority as fact as the entry currently does.) What about his writings being an intellectual predecessor? As of yet there has been no reputable published source making this claim, and the relationship is still a bit too tenuous to me (to the extent that thousands of other writings would also count as "intellectual predecessors" if this von Bertalanffy text is to be considered an intellectual predecessor) but more acceptable and certainly a less radical claim. I’m uncertain whether making “intellectual predecessor” claims would be suitable to include here however, since (1) von Bertanlaffy's published text seems open to interpretation regarding such matters (I for one think the connection is still a bit too tenuous) and (2) WP:NOR limits the extent where editors can make their own personal new interpretations of published data (as opposed to citing authoritative sources that do make them)—but the compromise I put forth might still be the best solution all things considered.

If one were to use a "forerunners" section regarding the two men (Paley and von Bertalanffy, as in the compromise above) I have no objection as long as the quotes are in the article so that readers can see exactly what von Bertalanffy and Paley said. This way, we give no false impressions to what von Bertalanffy actually said, we have no violations of Wikipedia policy (e.g. regarding original research and viewpoints of extremely small minorities), and we let readers decide who (if anyone) can be properly credited with an "early concept" of irreducible complexity. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears that there is nothing to mediate, as the parties opposed to TisthammerW do not wish to further participate in this mediation. I would recommend that you take this to the official mediation committee or arbitration. If nothing happens within the next week, I will mark this for deletion. Quaere verum 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk has apparently refused to participate in formal mediation (I messaged him twice, he has not responded). I'm thinking of taking it to arbitration. I recommend that this cabal entry not be deleted yet, since this will serve as evidence that prior attempts to resolve the dispute were made (necessary evidence when I make the request for arbitration). --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I am Cowman109^Talk from the Mediation Cabal. I'd like to note that when cases are closed, the details of the case are not deleted; only the listing of the case is moved to the archives. Would you be alright with this case closing? Cowman109^Talk 21:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering that FeloniousMonk, one of the key persons involved in this dispute, seems unwilling to participate in any sort of mediation (including this one) that action seems prudent. I would find it acceptable as long as this entry is accessibly archived. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case.... Cowman109^Talk 19:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case closed

Due to inactivity, this case has been closed. It will remain in the records at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Closed_Cases_3#May, and this page will still be accessible by the same link as it has always been accessible from. This page will remain on my watchlist, but should any new troubles arise I would recommend submitting a new request for mediation so the case can start fresh. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 19:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)