| Subject: Careful reading does not yield agreeing |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/26/06 12:22am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Read more carefully everyone" on 09/25/06 11:20pm
>
>Ludwig von Bertalanffy says merely summing up the
>components won't allow you to understand the system;
>the interaction of the components allows you to derive
>how a system works at the higher levels. Behe puts
>forth the concept of a mechanism (as blood clotting)
>ceasing to function if any of the various components
>are removed. They're similar in that they both deal
>with systems and their components, but they're just
>not the same concept.
They are essentially, the same concept in a very general way. Ludwig says, "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 would imply that if one of the components ceased to exist, the relation would cease to exist and therefore the higher levels derived would be affected.
Ludwig was talking specifically about biology, whereas Paley is talking about a watch. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find some quote predating Paley about someone dicussing how without a certain pulley a machine seizes to function. The thing is, in these contexts it is a "mechanical principle" moreso than it is a "biological principle".
In this particular case, the context makes Ludwig's quote more applicable than Paleys. After all, Behe's arguments are BIOLOGICAL in nature, and he uses mechanical analogies to clarify those things, not vice versa.
One man focuses on a
>system requiring all its parts or else it stops
>working, another talks about something akin to the
>concept of synergy (the ensemble of components etc.).
>After all, one can easily envision an ensemble of
>components producing an effect without the system
>being irreducibly complex.
I'm not sure one can. To understand something on a high level composed of many pieces is to understand that thing with all those variables intact. If you start tinkering with those variables then you have, even though it may be minutely, changed the thing and what you are now perceiving is the thing MINUS whatever relation was had before,or PLUS a new relation.
>
>Perhaps you should read more carefully, since I have
>one compelling reason that you apparently missed:
No, I didn't "miss" it. I just didn't find it to be compelling.
>
>Paley says the watch stops working if you mess around
>with the components. Ludwig von Bertalanffy says
>nothing of the sort--he is only talking about synergy
>(or something like it).
See above.
The Paley quote is far more
>similar to the concept of irreducible complexity than
>what Ludwig von Bertalanffy says.
That's debateable, and that's what we're doing.
I'm not saying
>either one come up with the concept of irreducible
>complexity, but if someone did it surely goes
>back to fellow ID adherent Paley (whom Behe quotes and
>who predates von Bertalanffy by roughly a century),
>not von Bertalanffy.
Or how about a caveman who nonchalantly uttered one day "food no cook without fire?"
>
>Also, the rather novel interpretation of the quote
>that von Bertalanffy came up with an early concept of
>irreducible complexity is original research, which is
>not allowable in Wikipedia policy (see
>target=_blank
>href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_
>Cabal/Cases/2006-03-10_Irreducible_complexity">the
>whole thing to learn more).
I didn't see whether or not they said he "came up" with it, but he certainly got "very close" to it.
About the only place
>you find the claim is in Wikipedia or websites that
>copy it. If we had some reputable scholarship
>crediting the concept to Ludwig von Bertalanffy, that
>would be different. But here we only have an
>extremely small minority; namely, a handful of
>Wikipedia editors. And when the citation is actually
>examined, the concept of irreducible complexity just
>isn’t there.
I'm not saying wikipedia is perfect, don't get me wrong. If they said anyone came up with the concept out of either of these two, they should edit it because it isn't the concept exactly. What I object to is your notion that Paley is a "better fit" than Ludwig, which is really the whole thing your objection rests on. This is why I initially said your evaluation of evidence often lacks something to be desired.
>
>
>Perhaps, but there's a difference between a conceptual
>predecessor and the concept itself.
Then that ought to have been the case you made instead of this whole Paley aside.
>
>I get the feeling you have once again misconstrued my
>actual position. You might want to read that
>mediation cabal entry more carefully.
Yes, yes. The standard Wade, "You aren't understanding my position." I said specifically, "I get the impression". That means I'm making a statement about ME. That ALSO means that I'm not saying anything about your position other than about how it is coming across TO ME. That also means if I read it twenty times it will still come across the same way TO ME unless you give me something to consider by what you meant that is different from my impression. Telling someone to "read it again" because they glean a different impression than the one you meant to generate isn't going to "fix" it. You'd be better served to elucidate what it is you meant to accomplish by saying thus and so.
>
>>I do find it interesting that on the Wikipedia, five
>>years later, people are saying roughly the same thing
>>about you there that many of us have said here.
>
>Such as?
Such as the accusation that you change the standards of evidence, that you seem to "push your brand of intelligent design", that your discussions are disingenious.
Is that really, at the end of the day, the impression you want people to walk away with when you make an argument? You've got a fairly large presence on the internet, and there are several sources leveling these same charges at you. Why?
>I'll give you an explanation when you give me
>something to go on: what specific "things" are you
>talking about?
I think the above is pretty specific. I'm not particularly interested in going quote by quote as I think it is unnecessary, but it seems quite often you accuse people of not understanding your position. If that is true, then what would that say about your presentation style? Why are you being misunderstood so often?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 