Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bad Definition

Latest comment: 8 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion

Think the definition needs a basic check, this article seems to be describing Specified Complexity, 'too complex to have evolved' rather than Irreducible complexity 'a step that cannot be done by increments'. Tsk. I suggest the simple principle of a term definition should source a proposal of it rather than starting with the shown mélange of criticisms, so use Behe or Discovery Institute. The IC definition would then wind up more "An irreducibly complex system is defined as one that could not possibly have been formed by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system." or "A single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Can others suggest sources from proponents of the term ? Markbassett (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I agree there's a problem with the first sentence, but I think the problem is its complexity (ha!) If we were able to simplify it a bit, I think it would get the point across a little better. Let me take a look at the sources and see if I can paraphrase them into a viable alternative. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Preliminarily just looking at the sources we're currently citing:

Forrest "the requirement for the presence of multiple components of certain complex systems . . . for the system to accomplish its function. As such irreducibly complex systems by definition work only when all components are present, Behe claims they cannot arise by the sequential addition and modification of individual elements from simpler pre-existing systems" (pg 20)
[http://amazon.com/Pseudoscience-Extraordinary-Claims-Paranormal-Critical/dp/1405181222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448941192&sr=8-1&keywords=Pseudoscience+and+Extraordinary+Claims+of+the+Paranormal%3A#reader_1405181222 Smith]: "Irreducible complexity states that some biological structures are so complex that if you remove a single part they will cease to function...thus, the complete structure must have emerged spontaneously"
Shermer: I don't have access
Shulman "The argument goes like this: organs such as the human eye are too complicated and have too many intricately interlinking parts to have evolved over millennia"
[http://amazon.com/Nonsense-Stilts-Tell-Science-Bunk/dp/0226667863/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448941522&sr=8-1&keywords=Nonsense+on+Stilts%3A+How+to+Tell+Science+from+Bunk#reader_0226667863 Pigliucci]: "evolution cannot produce a complex structure, particularly by means of natural selection...there could not have been simpler intermediate structures." (pg 182) — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I like Smith and Shulman. How about: "...that postulates that some biological structures are so complex they cannot be broken down into smaller parts or they would cease to function. Proponents of irreducible complexity argue that such systems could not have evolved through a series of steps by natural selection." The only problem is that it's much longer. Maybe there's a way to shorten it. Thoughts? — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Jess - the current melange of cites for a Specified Complexity phrasing seems not a good place to look. They also seem unsuitable by nature of being excerpts of arguments against it (or criticizing Bush administration etcetera) rather than providing the concept and citeable as an originating or promulgating source. Doing a Bing for the Discovery Institute definition of Irreducible Complexity I can see a couple Behe candidates

* "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box [1996], p. 39)" (from Discovery Institute webpage How to Explain Irreducible Complexity)

* "Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning." (Behe, August 1996, speech delivered to the Discovery Institute Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry )

Though I've also shown an earlier wiki version as at least being about IC rather than SC

* "An irreducibly complex system is defined as one that could not possibly have been formed by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system."

Here are some further sites that seemed relevant

* Irreducible Complexity (for historical precedents)

* New World Encyclopedia

* a definition

* Irreducible Complexity Demystified

* Irreducible Complexity - 4 definitions

* About Irreducible Complexity

cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... you seem to be saying the quotes I provided are talking about SC instead of IC. I'm having trouble seeing that; they look to me to be almost identical to the quotes you listed. Keep in mind that IC and SC are pretty similar; the "too complex" wording is part of both. IC just focuses on natural selection creating the complex structure through steps, and SC focuses on the supposed "probability" of something having evolved, and patterns which "could only be designed". I think a couple of things are important to communicate in our def:

incremental changes
"too complex"
attack on natural selection

To start off, are we on the same page, there? — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem with the intelligibility of the first sentence and suggest shortening it as follows: "Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that postulates that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or "less complete" predecessors through natural selection." The rest of the sentence seems unnecessary to getting the point across.

In deciding whether or not this is a reasonable definition of IC, I would look to Behe's definition further down in the article: "A single system which is composed of several 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". I see no contradiction between the two definitions. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 17:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Jess - Yup, you're talking SC not IC, and exploring SC-ish cites doesn't seem likely way to the best or appropriate ones for IC. Irreducible means the focus is on something that cannot be simplified into a series of steps -- something that would only be functional as one giant step. Anything talking 'too complex' is not this Behe topic, and not talking the removal of one part that Mmyotis just quoted above. Re the 3 points listed, I think it's only close on one out of three

not incremental
irreducible
not natural selection - but the concept is not a general attack on that or direct attack on that per se

(more that it is proposed as one means of inferring design, and a big 'if one can be shown' then just that one is shown; from there goes into how hard it is to even define 'system' or 'function' let alone prove 'irreducible')

Markbassett (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Jess It's been several days and nothing further, so I'll take a whack at that first line issue you mentioned and the tackle that the lead describing of SC instead of IC definition one. Will see how much of that sticks, doing a minimal amount here ... Markbassett (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mark, sorry. My schedule has been pretty packed recently, and I lost track of this. We need to be careful to define the topic in a way that represents all our high quality sources, not only Behe. Many creationists argue for IC, and not all of them use the exact wording that Behe does. There are several sources above, for instance, that use the words "too complex" when explicitly defining IC. I think your assessment that "too complex" is SC-only is at odds with the sourcing, and I think that's because you're relying heavily on Behe's exact words. I definitely understand IC and SC, and the sources presented above definitely discuss IC. Those are just the ones already cited in the article; I haven't had a chance to look for others. I think Mmyotis' version is an improvement over what we have. I think it could be improved more, but I'd have to see a specific proposal. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah - well I did what I think your line 1 concern might have been, the convoluted 'that postulates that' phrasing; otherwise my concern that the lead was talking SC not IC and then a couple cleanup items snipped - a line about ID (not IC), and that para 3 repeated a line of para 1. If you're taking a definition other than Forrest or Behe thenthat cite needs to show that separate definition -- multiple different definitions are a fork to separate article or else a mention that definitions differ. I think you'd have to offer a specific cite and see if it is IC-specific or a generalized casual confglation, where remarks are s0tating overall opinions mentioning IC along with ID and SC, as a group statement and not speaking to the IC article topic per se. Markbassett (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

After reading through this discussion, there is absolutely no consensus for fluffing this article to an ID POV, so I'm reverting. I am One of Many (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree with revert. Why remove the finding of a court stating that certain IC claims had been refuted? That is as close to known-fact as an article like this can ever be, and is core encyclopedic knowledge. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Jess Obviously the grammar edit (which I think was what your concern was) got conflated in a bulk undo with other edits later that day, for the whole calendar band of the separate edit sessions ... Since there was no comment per different edit sessions nor alternative to deal with the tangled grammar put in, I'll try doing this much more slooooowly on separate weeks and see if 'argument that' vice 'argument that postulates that' as solo leads to attention at the individual edit level. eh, at least there was a Talk post explanation ... Markbassett (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, been several days and no revert on the grammar I think maybe Jess meant (trying still to do useable Talk first), so am moving on to see about next one ... Markbassett (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the central issue is that there is no "darwinian" sequence of steps leading to the final state. "Darwinian" meaning that each intermediate step being well-functioning, and the transition between steps being according to natural laws such as natural selection, and not directed to a goal ("random variation"). I'm not posing as an expert. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

TomS TDotO - yes that's about what the concept is defined as, and specifically just one un-steppable step -- that hypothetically something might be irreducible so it cannot be stepped to, it would need a 'giant step' to get there because all the parts are essential to function at all and so there isn't any less-functional precursor step. The logical counter-arguments exist of course - it might be come from spandrels of some other function; or evolve from something more complex downs to the simpler minimal form; or that maybe the path we just haven't figured out yet. What initially caught my eye was the article lede talking 'too complex' did not match to the definitions being about 'one impossible step' and the 5-part mousetrap example. Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been a few more days and the second few words look accepted, so I've just put in the 'functional precursor' language describing the IC definition of 'Irreducible' that if you lack any part it isn't functional -- implying there isn't a functional precursor babystep in evolution so it would have to be an evolutionary giantstep.

From "Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot be evolved in steps from simpler or "less complete" predecessors through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations."

To "Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot be evolved by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations"

I'm thinking this seems likely acceptable if maybe draw wordsmithing or comments ; will just find out by what comments or edits show up. Markbassett (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the way I read it, and I read a few ID pamphlets, is: the ID people claim that what they are doing is the second, but what they are actually doing is the first. I do not know whether this is a slight of mind by them or whether they really don't understand that simple mistake. Anyway, should we not just use the definition Behe, Dembski and Co. used? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hob Gadling - I'm not understanding your comment about second and first, but the 'functional predecessor language was from a while back and seems closer to Behe phrasings. If you've a better phrasing for 'no lesser item works' please offer it. For this thread I'm just working on fixing where the lead was confusing Specified Complexity with IC, and baby stepping slowly because an initial 5 baby steps drew unspecified revert. I would suggest the more general redo sounds like good talk for a new thread. Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The first and second are your "From" and "To" concepts. ID proponents do show there are no simpler constructs doing the same thing ("the second", "To"), then claim that they have proved there are no possible evolutionary predecessors ("the first", "From"). --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been yet more days and the 'functional precursor' language has not drawn edits, so I'm going to retry the clarify cite is page number edit. This one is so small I'd put in the next edit too, but will keep to the one-edit-at-a-slow pace approach. Markbassett (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A few more days and the tiny edit seems OK, so moving on to the next. (Snip non-IC statement; repetitive on Pseudoscience and it's an ID statement, not content on IC that is this articles topic.) This one is that after saying IC s rejected by the scientific community it jumps topics for one phrase about ID. Saying IC is used in ID is one thing, but going on to talk about ID is now talking ID and no longer within the IC topic. Seems just a WP:OFFTOPIC bit, or maybe just want to reiterate 'pseudoscience' one more time. Will remove the appended ID phrase "which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience" and the cite block attached to it of ID items. From the cites it's clearly not a near-key typo of IC, it is talking to the different article Intelligent Design. Markbassett (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The topics of ID and IC are closely intertwined; ID is hardly brought up without references to IC and SC, and IC is never referenced outside the scope of ID. We would expect some overlap in discussion between the topics because of their relation. It need not be extensive, but it should not be skipped either. Briefly mentioning ID and its reception in the scientific community seems warranted (since a central claim of ID is its scientific backing), so I don't see removing that as an improvement, personally. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Jess Nah. The IC relationship is clearly said in line 3, this line is just a mangle of legacy edits. As phrased seems just edits over time left a tangling of the English that unintentionally reads as inferring one of the two is getting guilt-by-association with the other but unclear which way it runs.

Long ago the lead was IC definition followed by 'part of ID' and the para ended with an understandable close 'IC is rejected, and ID is viewed as'. But since then the 'pseudo' labeling was put into line 1, the 'part of ID' was made the closing line and now the second line is a tangle in the middle of <line 3 message> comma <line 1 message> comma <different topic> that does not scan. It caught on reading because stitching of 3 things by commas failed a couple tries to scan and then I see it does not scan as intended.

Check the sentence breakdown: "Central to the creationist concept of intelligent design," (readable though redundant since said better at line 3) "IC is rejected by the scientific community," (well said, nicely expanded in para 3, if a bit redundant with line 1 'pseudoscientific') and then "which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience." (? does not link to sentence bits 'central' nor 'IC rejection'). Having "IC is rejected" as an interruption looks like insertion of background or example, like the insertion of Behe profession after his name, but then the line does not resume to something related to it's start.

The three phrases / two topics winds up just unclear English as to why it mentions the other topic here. Is the line trying to say IC is rejected because it is central to ID, or is it trying to say that ID is pseudo only because it includes IC, or is it saying that IC is pseudo only because of association to ID, or something else is unclear. I think none of those was intended and that edits put the meaning into the other lines and did not clean up.

I think whack off the disconnected phrase is the simplest fix. Just drop out the whole middle line seems good too, but seems less likely to succeed. Markbassett (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Relevance of Pritchard and other historical sources?

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The recent addition about Prichard lacks a secondary source on any relevance to this article, and as it's original research I've moved it here:

See also Charles Pritchard's 1866 "On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection".^[1]

While of historic interest as a response to Darwin, it seems to be offtopic in this article. This is a general problem with the history parts of this article, and I think they need drastic trimming. . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Dave Souza per WP:LAYOUT at WP:ALSO, making that section and putting the "see also" there. It's better article style to have a See Also anyway, and yes the article really could do with more bits shoved to a See Also rather than reiterating and making a huge article. The ancient history bits that predate IC do seem good candidates if you want to do that, this one just said explicitly "see also". Markbassett (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dave Souza that this Pritchard material is not sufficiently relevant to the topic of irreducible complexity to appear here. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree, and you can't just bung irrelevant links into a "See also" section. If they've any relevance as shown by reliable secondary sources then that can be justified on this talk page, otherwise any link just comes from MB's imagination or at best, original research which doesn't belong here. Removed accordingly. . dave souza, talk 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

References

^ C. Pritchard. "Appendix Note A On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection". The Continuity of the Schemes of Nature and Revelation: A Sermon Preached, by request, on the occasion of the meeting of the British Association at Nottingham. With remarks on some relations of modern knowledge to theology. London: Bell and Daldy. pp. 31–37., especially page 33

Hmm I was wondering if those recently-removed links were to support IC, refute it, intended to explain a particularity, or simply off-topic and confusing... They are probably best left out without clear context. —Paleo Neonate - 19:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with the change by dave souza, there is a "reliable secondary source" cited, the book by Alan Rogers, for Pritchard's argument being relevant to IC. I don't understand the connection to M[ichael] B[ehe]'s imagination. Historical facts are simply historical facts. I happen to find historical facts more interesting than unsupported speculations about how natural selection cannot possibly work. TomS TDotO (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair points, the reliable secondary source is in a footnote with a link to Pritchard: that doesn't justify an unsupported and apparently irrelevant link in "See also". Don't know what the source says, if it's important it should appear in Pritchard's bio and be clarified in the body text, but rather doubt if it's that significant. My bad for using "MB" to refer to Markbassett, didn't think of it being Behe's initials. . dave souza, talk 18:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Pritchard's book shouldn't be in the "See also" section. So I guess that that's all I have to say. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irreducible complexity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122134556/http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm to http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Rejected by (some of) the scientific community

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since I've seen an IP address and WP:SPA recently fight for this in the recent history, good reasons not to include "some of" is that with very rare exceptions, most relevant scientists do not consider these claims seriously at all. Adding "some of" not only violates WP:GEVAL but may even mislead readers into thinking that many biologists are ID/IC proponents. —Paleo Neonate – 21:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shortened description per WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

They mean to “Argument by proponents of intelligent design” instead of “Argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems cannot have evolved from a simpler version”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientific response needs some work...

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The section has a few bits MIA where just a remark or just an assertion shown... Anyone have additional words for the article to make sense out of these parts ?

The section Head has a quote from “science writer”, but not named Steve Mirsky or given context or have any obvious relevance to the subsections ... plus the link does not go to the article. I think this one is expendable as the prior line does the overall job and this is just adding one persons quote but if it stays it would need some more content.
The (only 2-lines) subsection on crossing fitness valleys does not seem related. I am not seeing the initial assertion that IC is equivalent at RS, nor description of how a valley relates. It’s interesting but ‘choice among paths’ does not seem the same as ‘there is no simpler step’ nor is any IC mention made.
Kenneth Miller quote in Falsifiability section... says something in e.coli work but does not give what specific e.coli work or what about it, just shows a quote out of context with no obvious relevance.
Eugene Scott mention is given re argument from ignorance, but not said ignorance on what. She is at least a plausible voice for this section, but later in that line it has unnamed critics quote “lack of imagination”, unexplained and I think not science venue so doesn’t belong here.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I repeated a citation in the 2-line fitness valley section to support that initial assertion.Joannamasel (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen any response for the other bits in month so I'll clean up the items:

Lead section "science writer" line - delete. It's a cute bit of snark, but the cite has not aged well -- only link I could find was in mail-archive.com at frostburg.edu (re Mirsky "Bushfires" and "In the Beginning"). And it appears a cute letter and not really a scientific response nor very useful so cutting ...
Falsifiability section Kenneth Miller bit - delete. Unspecific and and relevance not stated so no big loss.
Argument from Ignorance section Eugene Scott and 'argument from lack of imagination' - delete. Mostly the end bit of unspecified critics say what looks like just a snark line, not serious response.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Work was needed, not simple deletion, so I've restored two of these and improved the summary of what the sources say, remembering to give due weight to the majority expert view. Didn't restore the first one. . . dave souza, talk 07:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

'Argument from Ignorance' by Creationists or Atheists?

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Intelligent Design and irreducible complexity is an argument made by creationists that many call an 'argument from ignorance'. Of course, well-informed creationists view atheist explanations as arguments from ignorance. This section should not be included in this article - it's clearly biased in favor of atheist scientists. There are at least as many scientists who are believers in GOD and recognize great design and complexity in Nature and believe in GOD-guided (co)evolution and many additions to Darwinian evolution since 1859 that prove this. 73.85.205.67 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with the term "argument from ignorance", better called "appeal to ignorance". Evolutionary theorists do not claim that evolution must be true because it hasn't been disproved. Rather, they provide evidence in favor of the theory. This is not an appeal to ignorance. Phiwum (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that is “critics view” it as argument from ignorance, specifically citing the advocacy group NCSE as source — this simply notes the argument or framing put out by them, whose purpose is to promote teaching evolution, which as an advocacy group must be presumed a WP:BIASED POV spin that should be distorted and incomplete and meant to portray it in an insulting way. That doesn’t mean the advertising isn’t the greatest WP:WEIGHT out there. The authorities of scientists and philosophers are not the source, though they in their own way are not accepting IC. Scientific bodies strongly say ID is not science, and generally sought answers for IC examples, and that’s the end of their purview or concern anyway. Philosophers might point out it isn’t a match for the definition of argument from ignorance, or that how IC proponents define IC isn’t how the NCSE portrayal does, so the portrayal is an Argument from false premises ... yet saying critics are unfair isn’t saying IC is right either. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"Well-informed creationists" are like round squares or hot ice. Any statement made about them is true because ex falso quodlibet.

We have reliable sources calling that creationist logic an "argument from ignorance". I am not aware of any reliable sources calling scientific explanations that. (I guess that you mean scientific when you say atheist. That's just the creationist term for it.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It goes both ways at times. Evolutionary or anti-IC both stray into stances of an Argument from ignorance - “It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.” When Evolution is being stated as Truth or IC as Falsehood, that’s going beyond saying what a concept is and what evidence is, into making a bit of a leap. Evolution by Natural Selection is a concept, and has numerous bits of evidence. But to presume it explains everything in evolution or that things could only go in a linear way or that it has no gaps is a much, much different matter. Irreducible Complexity about evolutionary steps is a concept, and has had a few examples stated and alternatives offered. But to presume alternatives are a disproof instead of an agreement is a much different matter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is indented as if it addresses something I wrote, but it does not. Instead, it just rambles along, making silly claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Mmm. Try it on like this: evolutionistas logic by an “argument from ignorance”, asserting a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false; and anti-IDistas also do so when they assert the ID proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. The irony being that since neither is willing to look at or accept proofs, or to claim limited facts instead of “true” and “false”, there is no way out. The definition for “argument from ignorance” can fit any party claiming true or false for what is only a matter of concept explanations.

That NCSE has used the phrase is a fact - but then they are an advocacy group, giving a critics view. It’s just an accusatory phrase, recycling the term of a different context that sound properly insulting, which also dodges getting into what ID is - reliable sources note “argument by ignorance” is simply a ploy trying to shift the burden of proo. It’s not something NCSE got from an external source or seem to have any deep logic behind, just a slogan or conflation. The IC of this article asserts some steps cannot be reduced to simpler steps; the SC asserts that some things are so enormously improbable as to not be random. Neither of these is talking of “gap” but rather issue with the overly simple conception of the time of evolution being a linear progression of incremental small steps.

Oh, and Atheism isn’t a synonym for scientific. There are scientists who are religious or atheists or neither one in particular. I’m not sure what was meant by or would properly be an ‘atheist explanation’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing of this makes any sense, nor has it anything to do with improving the article, as far as I can make out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@ MarkB, how does this relate to the text in the article, and what sources are you proposing for any changes? You say "When Evolution is being stated as Truth or IC as Falsehood, that’s going beyond saying what a concept is and what evidence is, into making a bit of a leap." You seem to be leaping wildly beyond anything in the article, or for that mater anything said by the NCSE. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Dave - That didn't ping me so my response muuuuch later : I apologize for going off the thread topic of whether to delete the section. There was no wording proposal from Hob or I. The above was largely response to Hob's inputs, to say that the creationists also call the evolutionists positions "argument from ignorance"1 or that both sides say the other is 2 or state it as a misconception about ID 3. And in the part you quoted - there I was stating that when making a declaration of Truth or Falsehood, I think things have gone outside of explaining what the concept IC is or reporting the events and jumped into a summaryy of what a POV or framing has been given. I wouldn't say that differentiation is "leaping" beyond the current article or the cited NCSE statement about Intelligent Design, I'd say that was discussing the context of the section under discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The article and the lead are different

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Irreducible complexity is a perfectly scientific concept; and the rest of the article says that. The ID nutters lost the case because something being irreducible complex doesn't mean it can't evolve. GliderMaven (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I corrected, but it's being revert warred by somebody who should know better. GliderMaven (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity means it can't be reduced in any way without failing. But scientists showed how IC structures could be created by lateral or downward evolution from earlier, more complex or different structures. GliderMaven (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a substantive difference between "rejects the concept of irreducible complexity." and "rejects the idea that irreducible complexity cannot evolve.". The latter is a double negative, which seems sloppy and confusing. But even if we correct the double negative, it just seems to be reiterating the definition of "irreducible complexity". The whole idea is that a structure exists which could not be created from evolution, so if someone rejects IC, it means they reject the idea that IC can result from evolution. — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The substantive difference is that scientists don't reject the concept of irreducible complexity, so what's written is bullshit. GliderMaven (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

What they reject is the idea that irreducible complexity disproves evolution. GliderMaven (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

So it's actually WRONG. And my edit correcting it is being repeatedly revert warred out, and now you're doing it as well! GliderMaven (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The claim that scientists reject IC is NOT supported anywhere in the article. They certain reject ID, and the idea that IC supports ID. So you're massively oversimplifying. It's a concern to me that you don't see the difference. GliderMaven (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The 2 sources we're using says this:

"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large"
"[they] use more slick, pseudoscientific language... like "irreducible complexity""

We also have other sources within the article which reiterate these points. IC is not science, it is pseudoscience, and the scientific community rejects it. Do you have any scientific sources which contend with the ones we're using? — Jess· Δ ♥ 12:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No, and the phrase We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted means that they're rejecting the claim that irreducible complexity disproves evolution, which is Professor Behe's actual claim, not that irreducible complexity couldn't biologically exist- scientists aren't necessarily claiming that. While many, or even all of the examples claimed for irreducible complexity may not be irreducibly complex, in general that would be a ridiculous claim that all living structures are not irreducibly complex; but it's one that the Wikipedia article is making, wrongly in the lead. GliderMaven (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

User:GliderMaven Maybe this would help "although irreducible complexity does rule out direct routes, it does not automatically rule out indirect ones" (Darwins Black Box, 2006 ed. p258) Behe there wasn't contending something which is irreducibly complex is unreachable or that evolution can not follow from it, he's saying that a stepwise natural selection for the function could not be the mechanism which produced it if there is no simpler stage with the same function.

As to the cites above - the first is appropriate, the second is not. The judge noted papers against IC exist as evidence of rejection. The text (e.g. [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/400/707/2414073/ here) goes into more detail into what parts and where some of the papers counter it, but the upshot is giving his judgement that they exist and show IC was rejected by the community at large. The other cite is inappropriate, as it said ... "advocates of so-called intelligent design ". ID, not IC. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Explain Negative Language

Latest comment: 1 year ago19 comments5 people in discussion

Why does this article treat the argument it's describing as debunked? Especially the arguments made by Michael Behe: "Pseudoscientific," "Mistaken assumption," "Ignoring" and "disregarding published research," etc. This treats a genuinely plausible theory as a bunk, quack assertion that has no evidence to back it up. But is this true? Why can't this article treat a theory as a legitimate one? Further, the fact that "irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community" is no reason not to treat it as a plausible theory. In fact, it runs counter to the open-minded nature of scientific study. I may be relatively ignorant of the scientific community, but common sense tells me that mob rule and dismissal of an argument seems decidedly un-scientific. Why can't this article treat the argument as a plausible argument? Lincoln1809 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does this article treat the argument it's describing as debunked? Because it is. See the reliable sources cited in the article.

This treats a genuinely plausible theory as a bunk It is your opinion that it is plausible. It is okay that the article deviates from your opinion, since Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources and not on your opinion.

I may be relatively ignorant of the scientific community, but common sense tells me Ignorance will prevent you from recognizing that this is not "mob rule" but based on evidence and logic. You should read the reliable sources cited in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Lincoln1809 - I think the reason is clear enough - there are editors who insist on using such language. Personally, I take the insistence on the prominence of vague pejorative and declarations of judgement at the start as going too far - beyond factual reporting of WP:truth matters into scientism fervour of we must declare WP:TRUTH. I have in the past TALKed for “rejected by science” as factual reporting and prominently said, instead of the vague pejorative “pseudoscience” as WP:UNDUE and WP:OR creation but obviously did not convince folks. I take some consolation of two wrongs make an almost-right - any insult-throwing and sales pitch language is an obvious sign of article bias. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" may be read as pejorative, and rightly so. Similarly, cargo cult science involves the trappings of advanced technology without its underlying substance. However, with well-defined denotation, "pseudoscience" is far from vague. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Just plain Bill - calling something as fake or imitation science is imputing an intent to deceive so is an insult, but also lacks definition as to where or how it falls short so is a vague insult. Try reading here maybe. It occurs as an informal and emotional name-calling rather than a technical term, such as Popper used it in expressing anger over communists controlling education in the 1930s. There is no clear and objective criteria for what is ‘pseudoscience’ any more than there is for what is ‘science’. Telling outmoded science from bad science from speculative science from poor phrasing from weak understanding is always going to be difficult. But at least determining science has professional opinions and serious pieces motivated by attempts to determine validity. Name-calling does not have usage by professional bodies in any professional capacity. So occurrences in WP seem clear only as a sign of emotional bias in articles, weakening the scholarship validity of the article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

p.s. I am OK with the usage in that two wrongs make an almost-right of at least it’s fairly obvious indicator of bias. When an article starts with a judgement position, such as ‘Beckham is the best footballer ever’, then it appears as a prejudice and folk may take the later content as filtered or rationalising. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Many cases of pseudoscience are unmistakably clear-cut, notably in the realm of religious apologetics masquerading in scientific regalia. Occurrences of the pseudoscience label in WP need reliable sources backing them up, or they go into the memory hole. If irreducible complexity, specified complexity, or intelligent design were solid science, they have been around long enough for supporting sources to have shown up. Can you show any such sources? Just plain Bill (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Just plain Bill the discussion is about explanation for what exists here goes too far the other way, of ranting at it. When “unmistakably clear-cut” is just by OR assertion instead of factually reporting external cites and attribution and deciding to put the denunciation with a vague pejorative in the first line despite UNDUE and not FIRSTLINE guidance, ‘editors wanted to’ is the only explanation I have. Professional cites use professional language - scientific bodies or legal decisions simply say ‘not science’, philosophy and adherents may use ‘creationism’ — so to me and others the name-calling just comes off as local WP consensus is doing name-calling because they wanted to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Markbassett ranting? The lead has multiple sources for the statement that the scientific community regards intelligent design as pseudoscience and rejects the concept of irreducible complexity. WP:PSCI policy is "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." Please provide details of what you propose to fully comply with that policy. . . . dave souza, talk 20:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

[ec] Mark, is this paper, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology, "unprofessional"?

Can you show reliable sources describing irreducible complexity et al. as solid science? Just plain Bill (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes that clearly is not a scientific paper, and also not an explanation for the thread topic of why this article uses the negative language that it does. And if one looks at that cited content, it is not discussing “pseudoscience”. Other than the catchy title and a single early line asserting “Intelligent Design Creationism(IDC) has been one of the most successful pseudosciences of the past two decades, at least when measured in terms of cultural influence” it is a critical examination of the rhetorical ‘toolbox’ and never mentions pseudoscience again. The professional label used there was “creationism” and the content was criticism of rhetoric. Better URLs to cite its publication would be uchicago.edu or JSTOR.

Again, the question is about explaining the actual negative language used, and I think it is simply down to ‘because the editors wanted to’ ... this TALK seems a demonstration. If you have some other explanation, feel free to offer it in your own sub thread. Over & out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"because the editors wanted to"? No, because WP:PSCI is Wikipedia policy, as Dave pointed out. "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included."

"criticism of rhetoric" is a mischaracterization of that peer-reviewed article, which criticizes Behe's and Dembski's "scientific" claims. It mentions pseudoscience early, and then proceeds to cite reasons that it is an apt descriptor for IC and ID.

Forgive me for offering a direct link to the content of the journal article in the context of a WP article talk page. Where it is cited in article space, the linkage is more complete. Just plain Bill (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Just plain Bill - Two reflections for you.

First, that PSCI line happened years after it was already in use at this article and saying WP:PSCI is just another way of saying enough "editors wanted to" use that wording. All this was a long time ago, e.g. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and before my time here. I think it's clear the lead of Irreducible complexity had the word in 2005 -- and not much went into WP:NPOV until after early 2009. To my eyes, that word choice reads as OR editorialising, and presenting a judgement before content may come off as a pre-judging, but meh.

Second, my characterisation of the paper was it is not discussing the wording "pseudoscience". I saw just no section of the paper discussing the term "pseudoscience" nor stating one should use that word. I did see it says it is "An analysis of these rhetorical strategies", and that seems to match the content. Anyway, I really do think we're done here so ... over & out again ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

in this paper, we will take a closer look at the conceptual toolbox and rhetorical strategies of the ID creationist.

"Rhetorical strategies" are not the sole focus of the paper. The "conceptual toolbox" is where the pseudoscience is to be found. Even if the authors did not jam the word "pseudoscience" into every nook and cranny of their exposition, it was declared to be a salient theme in their title, and in the first sentence of their introduction.

If you are seriously arguing that WP:PSCI, a Wikipedia policy, can be ignored because it is "too new," then I suppose we really are done here, unless you propose to edit WP articles on that basis. ciao, Just plain Bill (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Just plain Bill I was seriously stating corrections to where your explanation was mistaken - why the negative language is here, particularly the vague pejorative "pseudoscience", is because the editors wanted to. PSCI is part of "because the editors wanted to" use the word and was created after the word being used here. Your thought the word was here "because of PSCI" does not match the sequence long-ago events. I think we can drop further discussion about the paper you pointed to. Since the contents are not about defining 'pseudoscience' nor criteria for use of the word, it is not relevant for the thread of why the word is here.

I don't think there's a further point to this thread, "because editors wanted it" (i.e. wanted OR) is the explanation. Over & out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The word is now being kept "because of PSCI," whatever the history may be. The paper's purpose was not to define pseudoscience or give criteria for its use, but to point out flaws in the reasoning of Behe, Dembski, et al, flaws that justify it being called pseudoscience. If you think there is/was OR involved, take it to an appropriate admin notice board or drop the stick.

This could easily be settled by showing credible, reliable, reputable sources saying that IC is sound, solid science. Given that Behe's own university biology department does not support or endorse his views around intelligent design, that has the proverbial snowball's chance of success.

As I read this discussion, it looks like your argument is coming from a place of "I don't like it." That is not how Wikipedia works. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Just plain Bill - Remember, this thread is about why WP chose the negative language for the article that it did. "Pseudoscientific," "Mistaken assumption," "Ignoring" and "disregarding published research," etc.

PSCI seems just WP editors wanting to use "pseudoscience" back in the mid-2000's, here and elsewhere. It was already here when PSCI was written, so seems more like the desire here helped create PSCI and keeps PSCI in place rather than the word is being kept here because of PSCI.

"Mistaken assumption" and "disregarding published research" seem local casual editorializing whim, a smaller case of because the editor(s) wanted to. I don't have any other explanation where else a phrase language comes from when it is not in the cites nor a summary of the cites content, and not a phrasing in TALK discussion.

If you feel there is some other explanations for why these phrasings were used, feel free to make your own subthread and present the case of evidence about who did it and what they said at the time. It seems that you don't like the simple 'because the editors wanted to', but Occams razor favors simplicity and there just doesn't seem to be evidence for any other explanations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, Wikipedia is socially constructed, and science is socially constructed, unless they say what you want them to say. Is there any point to this? You have given no valid reason for removing the bad words. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Hob Gadling Nah mate, science (is supposed to) go by evidence over "socially" picking things. I'll also offer a reminder: The thread asked for the reason why specific negative language is here, which I've answered was "because the editors wanted to". If you see some history for the three phrasings that doesn't look like "because the editors wanted to", feel free to give actual evidence in your own subthread. Otherwise yes, the question was answered and we're done. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

[1] C. Pritchard. "Appendix Note A On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection". The Continuity of the Schemes of Nature and Revelation: A Sermon Preached, by request, on the occasion of the meeting of the British Association at Nottingham. With remarks on some relations of modern knowledge to theology. London: Bell and Daldy. pp. 31–37., especially page 33

[1]