Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/26/06 10:23am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Careful reading does not yield agreeing" on 09/26/06 12:22am
>>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.
In a very general way. They both involve systems and their components, but that's about it. Behe talks about a system that ceases functioning if any of the various components are removed, Ludwig doesn't. He makes no mention of that aspect whatsoever.
In any case, you're disagreement on the interpretation doesn't matter thanks to the Wikipedia policy on original research (that's why I asked you to read the whole thing carefully). An inclusion of this interpretation would violate Wikipedia policy.
>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
If you're trying to equate what Ludwig said to irreducible complexity, it is phrases like these that the term non sequitur was invented. A car works because of the ensemble of its components. Suppose we removed the cruise control from my car. Would it stop working? The answer is no. The two concepts are just not the same thing.
>Ludwig was talking specifically about biology, whereas
>Paley is talking about a watch.
Paley is specifically talking about biology also; this analogy is famous for his design theory (just as the Ludwig quote the author used the analogy of combining two elements together). Paley talks about messing around with any of the components wrecks the system, Ludwig says no such thing. Paley applied this analogy to biology and inferred design. Ludwig does not. Paley came first. Ludwig did not. Paley was quoted by Behe (including the watch analogy thing), Ludwig was not.
If anyone is to be credited with an early concept of irreducible complexity, surely such a thing goes to Paley. Why should it go with Ludwig? The only reason you offered so far was the apparently mistaken belief that Paley applied it to watches and not biology (plus an apparent non sequitur). Were you unaware of his famous watch analogy?
>>The Paley quote is far more
>>similar to the concept of irreducible complexity than
>>what Ludwig von Bertalanffy says.
>
>That's debateable
Maybe so, but Wikipedia policy is not. You can't impose your own novel interpretation of published data into Wikipedia. It's against the policy (again, please read the whole thing very carefully).
>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 to me is an indication that you did not read the whole thing carefully. I did not rest the whole thing on this one “better fit” argument. I also based my objection to exclude the material in question (or include the proposed compromise) on several Wikipedia policies. Can you understand now why I believe you have not read the whole thing carefully?
>This is why I initially said your evaluation
>of evidence often lacks something to be desired.
I think I should say the same to you, given your apparent ignorance of the situation.
>>>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.
Paley was just one of several pieces of evidence to the case.
>>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".
I know, and I'm saying your impression is wrong.
>That means I'm making a statement about
>ME.
So was I when I said specifically "I get the feeling."
>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.
If you read it carefully, you would see that my chief complaint is not at all about who is an intellectual predecessor (I specifically addressed this very issue), but more like violations of Wikipedia policy.
>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.
If you refuse to read it carefully and completely gloss over the portions where I specifically address that very subject, then I agree.
>>>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.
Do I push intelligent design? In forums I do. What about changing the standards of evidence? Can you cite a specific example where I have done that?
Note that when it came to accusations, nobody was willing to back them up against me even when I specifically requested them (see the cabal entry). How do you explain that? When it came to accusations, why was I the only one able to cite evidence and specific examples? What explanation do you have for that?
>Is that really, at the end of the day, the impression
>you want people to walk away with when you make an
>argument?
No, but that's going to happen sometimes with controversial topics.
>You've got a fairly large presence on the
>internet, and there are several sources leveling these
>same charges at you. Why?
Here's my explanation: fervent emotions can fog up the lens through which we see if we aren't careful, an example of which is being too quick to make ill-founded accusations against opponents. I think I'm a little better at watching out for this than some, which explains why they didn't (and couldn't) come up with evidence and specific examples to back up their claims like I did.
>but it seems quite often you accuse people of not
>understanding your position.
If the shoe fits...
I would like to think that most of the time people understand me correctly, but because I’ve spoken so much on controversial topics in web forums where emotions run high, misunderstanding is bound to happen from time to time.
>If that is true,
>then what would that say about your presentation
>style? Why are you being misunderstood so
>often?
See above. This thing happens a lot in controversial debates. Don't believe me? Read Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. And the people who made such misconstruals where not just people on the Internet—most of them were professionals. If you wish, I can cite you a specific example where I explain something very clearly and yet was misunderstood--not surprisingly the subject matter involved was controversial.
Consider also you came away with the misconstrual that I based my whole objection on the "better fit" argument--because you evidently did not read the whole thing carefully. Do you really think you are the only person to have made this mistake?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 