Talk:Emergence/Archive 2

Archive 2 of Talk:Emergence. See also Talk:Emergence and Talk:Emergence/Archive 1

Disputed
I notice some NPOV problems and unsupported claims. The introduction is atrocious. I am going to be going through this article with a fine-toothed comb. There are no proper citations in this article and I question that most of it is supported by any credible science. Credibility aside, the controversial claims need to have *some* direct citation or they will have to be removed. First I am going to tag sections, then attempt to edit for neutrality. I'll leave the bulk of the article alone for the time being, until I can take a closer look at it and examine solid sources.

Also contradictions - "emergence" is defined at the top as meaning something which is unpredictable from reduced elements, yet many of the sections below explicitly describe the constituent causes of the "emergent property". There is no consistent use of a particular definition of "emergent" in this article. Fourdee 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are a real hero. I would recommend to read a bit more about the topic before marking every second word as "dubious". As you probably know, the subject of the article - "Emergence" - is a very broad and general concept, you will not find a special precise definition which fits for all cases. By the way, with all the "citations needed" tags, the article looks much better now . Look at your own comments, they could need some tags, too. For instance, the sentence "the introduction is atrocious" is clearly an opinion . So you should mark it with . --JFromm 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it makes the article look messy. The places I tagged are controversial and need balancing and/or citations.  Please feel free to associate the statements with the proper sources with inline citations.  To say something is "irreducible" and cannot be predicted from its constituents is conjecture; it's a metaphystical/epistemological/religious belief which is not universally held.  At the least it needs a clear citation showing which expert has made the claim.  Articles about controversial opinions should be phrased as such rather than as accepted fact.  Further, if "emergence" is to be defined at the top, the definition needs to be applied consistently throughout the article.  If there is not a definition for emergence which can be consistently applied to every section, how can they all be included in the same article?  I don't understand your sarcasm either, opinion is appropriate on a talk page, but not in an article about a purportedly scientific topic.  Fourdee 02:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are pushing a point of view trying to crush the article with tags because you feel it is junk science, as revealed by your comments here ("question that most of it is supported by any credible science", "purportedly scientific topic"). Rest assured that it is very scientific. Unless you believe in non-scientific creationism or so-called intelligent design, then human intelligence evolved and emerged. Now the article could stand improvement, but beating it to a pulp with tags is not the way to do it. Hu 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be right, Hu, but it has been my experience that the next best thing to a good friend is a good enemy. Fourdee is challenging us to find sources.  I see no reason why we can't do that.  I certainly don't want to just ignore or cover up the call for sources.  I think this article will be stronger if we rise to the challenge Fourdee is making instead of trying to cover it up.  Towards that end, I am looking for the sources he is requesting and am trying to put them in the article.  I think we'll need more time than the customary week because there are so many sources being requested all at once, but I am confident that we can provide them.  Having said that, I challenge him to provide detailed explanations of his various  tags so that we can see whether they are worth addressing (perhaps they can point to a lack of clarity in some part of the article that we can fix).  I am also not convinced that all of his tags address legitimate concerns and some can probably be safely ignored, but lets do address as many as we can-Psychohistorian 20:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, it is not appropriate to remove NPOV tags etc. unilaterally especially when the whole article lacks inline citations for a subject it acknowledges is controversial. Revert war ensues.  Fourdee 20:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I take quite the other position than you have attributed to me. I say that by claiming something is "irreducible" and not explained by its constituents you are proposing a mystical explanation rather than scientific.  The basis of science is causality.  Fourdee 20:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also don't see why you'd remove the categories, they are appropriate either way. I need to add Psychohistorians edits back (busy at the moment) but I notice they were still POV biased and did not seem to be citing a physicist.  Let's work together. Fourdee 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have some stuff to do today but I am very interested in working on this article. Please do not enter into an edit war.  The article itself admits the topic is very controversial, I don't see why you would object to it being tagged as such and places missing a balanced opinion and/or inline citations tagged.  Every where that asserts something new has arisen which is not "explained" or "predictable" by its constituents is a tenuous claim which needs support from a PhD in physics, chemistry, or the like (philosophy etc. would not be acceptable in my opinion but would be a start).  Other scientific claims need to cite their source or they appear to be original research.  I don't see how a bibliography at the bottom fills this requirement on a controversial page.  Fourdee 20:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also the 3 existing inline citations are not in the proper format, please read the style guide. Have to go, talk to you guys later. Fourdee 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should I need to quote a physicist?? Systems science isn't limited to physics.  Also, sources can't be POV (or, rather, they can, but it is irrelevant in Wikipedia).  What is relevant is whether the -Wikipedia- article is POV, not whether sources are.  The only relevant issue regarding sources is whether they are reliable or not.  Regarding your tags of POV, they need to be connected to a part of the discussion page which explains what you think is POV about the content.  Else, the POV tags are just noise (and, unless I'm mistaken, can be removed for not following policy).-Psychohistorian 00:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Editors should not be in over-awe of PhD's. A Ph.D. is not required to report on scientific concepts or to educate or even to do good science.  Further, Fourdee should not make assumptions about the presence or lack of PhD's of editors. Hu 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First Fourdee declares "revert war" on us and then implores "Please do not enter into an edit war." This is disingenuous and does not assume good faith. Hu 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the most egregious tags. A single editor disputing an article does not mean the science is "totally disputed". In fact, the concept is well established and accepted scientifically, even if it is in some cases a little fuzzy around the edges. In many instances Fourdee slapped a "dubious" tag on a simple restatement of the definition or an illuminating example. Articles are permitted to restate their definitions for the purposes of pedagogical exposition. Hu 03:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fourdee 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC):
-- Fourdee 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not "declare" a revert war, I observed that you started one. The spirit if not the letter of the Three-revert rule will automatically place you in the wrong if you persist in deleting my edits wholesale.
 * You cannot replace Fact tags with "this is obvious" comments, you need to replace then with actual sources. Nothing is obvious if it's not cited.
 * Most of these citations will need to be from published scientists since this is a science article and makes claims about the sciences. Other fields may apply to subsections.  Any citation will need to be from someone who is a credible authority to make the claims.
 * The only one in this dispute who believes in the mystical appears to be you, I have no idea why you accuse me of it. I do not believe things magically appear without being directly caused or that complex behaviors are "irreducible".  This definition of emergence is bogus in my opinion and at the least needs a citation from a physicist or other qualified source who believes it.
 * Why not work with me and balance the article and provide full citations.
 * In a properly cited article, especially of a controversial topic which the introduction already states this is, every distinct statement or assertion will have an inline citation. Anything which is not directly cited needs to be deleted unless it an obvious consequence of a cited statement.  The onus is on you to find citations from credible published scientists for any claim about a scientific fact such as the irreducible or unpredictable nature of a system.
 * If it is difficult to find published PhDs in the sciences who believe systems are irreducible and not predicted by the behaviors of their constituent parts, that might tell you something. I am sure you can find some though.  Again, the onus is on you.  I don't see how a philosopher, BS or layman is qualified to make such a claim.
 * I have supported my placement of the tags. Each tag I placed is after a statement that is either uncited and not based on a cited statement, or dubious/arguable for the reason that it uses the definition of emergence which describes systems as irreducible, or relies on a very similar matter of opinion.  If any of the tags are extraneous by all means let's get rid of them.  Can we please discuss the specific ones which are improperly placed?  I will go through the article and see if there are any tags placed for a reason I have not clearly described.
 * I have tried to restore the edits caught in the crossfire between me and Hu. This is a waste of my time and yours Hu, let's work together.


 * Fourdee, sorry, but "since this is a science article" is wrong. Emergence is a concept used in several fields one of them being systems architecture (the field that I am currently working on my Master's degree in), systems architecture is not science but can and will be used as a source in this article.  I'd be more than happy to discuss this in more detail with you, but do not presume that you can steamroll through this.  I take offense at your presumption that other academic disciplines are of less merit on this issue than are the scientific disciplines.-Psychohistorian 13:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article makes claims about science such as I have described (that something is "irreducible" or not explained by the actions of its constituents). Those claims are outside the field of Architecture.  They are also outside the field of Systems Science - those are claims about physics, primarily, or more broadly the physical sciences.  Also, regardless of your credentials, only a published source from a recognized authority is a citable.  Your original research is not appropriate for Wikipedia (it is specifically forbidden) and at any rate would have no place in this article outside of the Architecture section.  I am not trying to "steamroll" anything I am demanding credible citations from recognized authorities in the relevant fields.  I do not have an agenda for how this article should read beyond it fairly representing the opinions of genuine experts.  Fourdee 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify. I would find citations of those in Systems Science or even Philosophy, if published and reputable, to be reasonable for the time being in the introductory and definition section.  However, any statements which go so far as to make assertions which could be interpreted to be about physics, physical science, or the epistemology of science I feel should be supported by a published expert in that field.  Other fields have no business in this article outside specific subsections.  Fourdee 13:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to review my edits in this page. You say that my original research is not acceptable for the article, but fail to remember that I have been pushing for more sources and less original research.  "Something is 'irreducible' or not explained by the actiosn of its constituents" -  I have no idea what that means, but "something is 'irreducible' or not depending on whether characteristics of the gestalt can be found in the constituent parts or, instead, arise as a result of the interaction of the constituents" is not a statement owned by physics - to claim it is is orignal research on your part.  Again, I am not disputing whether reliable sources should be provided, but your insistence that they need to be from physics is without grounds.-Psychohistorian 13:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I am asking that any claims be made by a published qualified expert.  If he/she be a Philosopher, Systems Scientist or Architect, and is making a statement within his/her field, fine.  Let's get this page filled out with citations and if I disagree with the POV presented I will provide counter citations. Fourdee 13:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fourdee requests Full Page Protection
I have responded to Fourdee's request for Full Page Protection. Hu 12:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you harassing my edits and watching my contribs? For example which you must've gone to some trouble to find. There's no reason for you to watching my contribs, moving my talk page edits, etc. Fourdee 13:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no harrassing, there is no "etc." or other "examples". There is only that single edit, where the new comment was simply moved to the end of the Talk page, per Wikipedia convention.  Please drop the over-reaction.  Hu 13:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well how did you even find the request for protection? I assume by watching my contribs (again).  Whatever, no big deal.  I don't appreciate when people I am having a dispute with follow me to other articles to niggle me though.  There is no good reason we can't work together to bring this article into compliance with the relevant policies about NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research (sorry to keep repeating this, it seems to me we should all be able to agree it is not in compliance).  Can I delete the request for protection before I/we bring more trouble on this article than it deserves?  Fourdee 13:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Deleting this section was accidental.Fourdee 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The saga of the page protection resulted in the page being protected, and here is the fullest set of the discussion just before it was protected. . Hu 14:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If none of you want the page protected I'll unprotect it as long as no-one edit wars on it. -- Steel 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fourdee wants it protected. It was his carefully considered request that he forcefully made a case for (and attempted to put words in my mouth in the process) and that he defended vigorously.  His hasty angry edit to the page clobbered good edits by more than one editor and now it is frozen into the state he wanted it frozen in.  We all backed off when he came down like a ton of bricks, which is why it is locked into his preferred state.  His take-no-prisoners actions lead me to wonder what commonsense edits he might accept, let alone what level of PhD citations and narrowly interpreted point of view he will accept.  We are at his mercy.  Despite his attempts at playing the statesman after the fact, his actions do not encourage me and I don't know how to proceed now that heavy duty machnery has been engaged. Hu 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate for the article to be protected but I don't see how to avoid an edit war without some further discussion about how the introductory section should read and what citations are appropriate. Hu, I believe the article is 99% the way you wanted it to be - free of all the inline tags.  This is a reasonable state for the time being.  Fourdee 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There you go again, putting words into my mouth. It is not 99% the way I wanted it to be, not even close. You clobbered every single one of my edits, and none of them have been restored.  It is frozen in your edit state, which is why you call it reasonable.  When it gets unfrozen, you will still be holding the TotallyDisputed Fully Protected club over our heads, ready to unilaterally define what you feel is an acceptable scientist-only PhD reference and impose standards that have never been imposed on any other article in Wikipedia, without discussion, and with you accusing us of edit warring.  A single reversion, such as I made does not make an edit war.  However, when you revert a reversion, that begins an edit war, especially when you declare one openly  the way you did. Hu 15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, seriously, submit an RfC or go to mediation. -- Steel 15:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can Individual Neurons Think?
Whether or not I agree that individual neurons cannot think, it is a statement which may reflect original research and/or an unsourced claim, and is the most trivial example of things which I tagged, and is the kind of generalization which is endemic of this dispute - the question is whether it is possible or not to reduce a system to its constituents. What IS thinking? Isn't a single instance of logic (a neuron or a transistor or whatever) in fact a rudimentary kind of thinking? I don't know, lets find out what the experts think.Fourdee 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected - Consensus Definition?
Unfortunately the page is now protected from edits, which is a hassle to all of us. I would like to come up with a consensus(consensual), cited definition for emergence which we can place in the introduction and use consistently throughout the article. Then we can get this unprotected and get back to work. Sorry for the dispute becoming heated guys, really see no reason we cannot work together. Fourdee 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC
We are having a heated dispute (see Talk:Emergence above) over a proper definition for Emergence and what sort of citations should be required for this article.

My positition is:
 * The article is not balanced and does not reflect all prevalent points of view. Particularly, the definition used at various points in the article claims that complex systems are "irreducible" and cannot be predicted or fully explained by the actions of their constituent parts.
 * The article lacks proper citations and should have only statements supported by published experts speaking in their field.
 * Any claims about Physics, Physical Science, or the Epistemology of Science should be supported by a published PhD in the relevant field.
 * Citations of Philosophy PhDs, Systems Scientists, etc. will be appropriate as long as they are speaking within their field.
 * Citations of non-experts, original research, unsupported statements, etc. will not suffice to support a controversial claim.

Please help us resolve these disputes and get the article unprotected. Fourdee 16:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hu's position

 * The field of Emergent Phenomena is a broad-ranging interdisciplinary one that is established and respected among scientists, even though there is still much debate.
 * Many fields beyond Physics or Physical Sciences are involved, including but not limited to Mathematics, Computer Science, Biology, animal behavior, population dynamics, Neurology, Psychology, Philosophy, Economics, History, and Sociology.
 * The brightest, most creative minds like Nobel Prize physicist Murray Gell-Man, computer scientist Douglas Hofstadter and many others who have engaged this subject can not be restricted to a single narrow field.
 * Arbitrary narrow definitions of acceptable qualifications are unworkable and unprecedented at Wikipedia. We generally do not know what a book author's or web site author's academic qualifications are.  Other articles do not require PhD sources exclusively.
 * The complainant can't be the one to arbitrarily set hurdles and restrictive qualifications.
 * Other articles at Wikipedia do not forbid cross-disciplinary sources.
 * The complainant (Fourdee) has not produced a reasonable list of objections to the article.
 * As user Psychohistorian pointed out, "This effectively stonewalls us."
 * The only objection that he has made is not well formulated. The essence of emergent phenomena is that higher level behavior (such as a termite colony's) can't be explained by considering the behavior of the constituent parts individually at the lower level (a worker termite for example).  It is not a worthwhile complaint to object against the fact that the totality of the complex system "cannot be predicted or fully explained by the actions of their constituent parts", since that is the whole point of studying emergent behavior.
 * The complainant has not explained what point of view the article takes and how that point of view is pushed in the article.
 * I contend that the article describes some emergent systems and the general characteristics and is neutral point of view.
 * I contend that complex phenomena have clearly emerged from physical systems such as the evolution of the human mind, without the intervention of a watchful creator or other mystical cause.


 * The complainant has not proceeded in good faith:


 * 1) He unilaterally without prior discussion attempted to bludgeon the article to death with two  tags and 52, , and  tags.
 * 2) Some of those tags were on simple restatements of the definition, which is a requirement for exposition in various parts of an article and shouldn't be tagged.
 * 3) Other tags were placed on obvious facts, like requiring a citation for "neurons are not individually capable of thought".
 * 4) Some of us objected to the overbearing edit.
 * 5) After a little discussion I reverted that heavy handed edit.  A reversion does not make an edit war.
 * 6) He then reverted the reversion, which does mark the beginning of an edit war.
 * 7) Further, he declared an edit war on this talk page.
 * 8) A couple of editors, me included, attempted edits to address some of the issues, including starting a references section, beginning proper references, conforming bibliographic titles to Wikipedia Manual of Style, and structuring the See Also section.
 * 9) Then Fourdee made a brash edit that clobbered all that
 * 10) He then made a forceful Request for Page Protection and defended it vigorously.
 * 11) In doing so, he made an ad hominem attack on me by claiming "Hu believes no citations are needed", which is false.
 * 12) The other editors backed off and stopped editing the page, leaving Fourdee's clobber in place.
 * 13) The page was frozen (protected) in the clobbered state.


 * His claims to have repeatedly requested to "work" with us have always been made after his actions, and now that he has got the page protection he argued so strenuously for, and got the page frozen in his state, he calls it "unfortunate".

This could have been handled more smoothly if the complainer had not been so brash, angry, arbitrary, and doctrinaire. It was not a collective decision to invoke the Request for Page Protection machinery, and it was not a collective decision to invoke the RfC machinery. In both cases it was Fourdee's unilateral decision.

-- Hu 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Resonse to Hu
If a published expert has assertions on this topic which do not clearly fall in a different field than his own (versus within the interdisciplinary field of emergence), that's fine. Hofstadter and Gell-Mann sound like good starting points for a supportable definition of emergence, I welcome your offer of providing citations of them. Regardless of what assumptions you believe are essential for the study of emergence, as with any controversial topic, those assumptions need to be clearly supported by a reputable expert source. Any old webpage on the topic is no kind of citation for this sort of article. I think you have some misunderstandings about the NPOV, Verifiability and No Original Research policies:
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * "Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source."
 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
 * "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criteria can always be considered reliable. However they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic."
 * "Expertise of the originator with respect to the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics."
 * "Has the material been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by in the academic journals."

As to the good faith etc., I don't see the point of rehashing that yet again as the chain of events is visible above in Talk:Emergence and the history, for anyone who is interested - it simply clutters this section which should be about trying to find a resolution. -- Fourdee 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I cannot take the time to fully review your conduct, however I agree with your assertions about sourcing in the article. It is incredible what "facts" find their way onto Wikipedia, and this is a topic that PhDs are still arguing about (and likely will continue long after we're all dead).  Unsourced claims should be eliminated or, perhaps, grouped into a "believe at your own risk" section for adventurous seekers of knowledge :)  It might be good to spend a little more effort not stepping on others toes (or at least making them feel as if you had), however I do agree with your principles fully, and I'm really tired of seeing psuedoscience on WP being touted as an "alternate viewpoint."  I think that the list you just enumerated (if it is, in fact, original) should be enshrined somewhere to help deal with all the psuedoscience articles.  Lets forget all the drama and fix this article already :) - JustinWick 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hofstadter and Gell-Mann
I agree with Hu that Hofstadter and Gell-Mann are the kind of sources who should be used in building this article, particularly the definition section. Hoftsadter is an accepted, published authority in several fields, and Gell-Mann is a Nobel awarded physicist. That is not to say I may not wish to add counter-citations to anything based on them, but they are credible authorities in several fields.

However, I do not think either Hofstadter or Gell-Mann are going to lend support to the so-called "strong emergence" definition used in this article (at the top and in many subsections). "Strong emergence" is a belief which essentially denies the validity of elementary physics and "reductionism", without any solid proof. The assertion that a complex system cannot be reduced to constituent or elemental behavior is 1) a (pseudo)scientific assertion and 2) not supported by any concrete evidence. Generally the supporters of that position use philosophical or mystical terminology to construct a position which essentially claims that physics is invalid, that there are things (such as consciousness) which are not fully governed by the known physical laws. Such statements should be included in this article only in the sense of saying "some philosophers believe" rather than asserting a widely accepted law or truth.

Hofstadter supports only "weak emergence" in explaining consciousness, from GEB:
 * "This should not be taken as an antireductionist position. It just implies that a reductionist explanation of a mind, in order to be comprehensible, must bring in "soft" concepts such as levels, mappings, and meanings. In particular, I have no doubt that a totally reductionist but incomprehensible explanation of the brain exists; the problem is how to translate it into a language we ourselves can fathom."

Gell-Mann on the subject of consciousness rejects the mystical, new-cause and pseudo-Heisenberg-based explanations - from the summary of "Consciousness, Reduction, and Emergence":
 * "Consciousness is often seen as requiring a special kind of explanation. But the various aspects of self-awareness can presumably emerge when certain levels of complexity are reached in an organism: it is not necessary to assume additional mechanisms or hidden causes. Looking at the most fundamental level, that of elementary particle physics, three principles appear—the conformability of nature to herself, the applicability of the criterion of simplicity, and the utility of certain parts of mathematics in describing physical reality—which are in themselves emergent properties of the fundamental laws of physics. [...] All the other sciences emerge in principle from fundamental physics plus historical accidents, even though "reduction" is obviously inadequate as a strategy. [...] Finally, it is argued that appeals to the alleged weirdness of quantum mechanics are based on a misunderstanding and are unlikely to have any place in a discussion of consciousness."

Let us use a definition for emergence based on the statements of published scientists and researchers making verifiable, supportable statements. Hofstadter and Gell-Mann are good examples. All statements in this article should be from similar experts. Fourdee 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fourdee, you are again making a bad assumption in connecting "strong emergence" to physics as tightly as you are doing - only this time you are doing so having it already been pointed out to you that it is a bad assumption. I'm going to take responsibility for that given as how I've not provided a lot of references outside of physics to help you get up to speed.  How about Eberhardt Reichtein, Mark Maier, and Peter Senge?  I think I can get you some good quotes there if I can just get some free time.  I suspect George Friedman, as well, will be easy for me to get quotes on.-Psychohistorian 21:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and while we're at it, can we drop the presumption that systems == science? Systems are used in science, particularly in the construction of models, but they aren't science per se.  Science involves deconstructing observations into testable hypothesis and then reconstructing them.  The emergent nature of complex systems do not lend themselves to deconstruction (though they do lend themselves to the construction of various views on the same dataset).  There are other techniques (such as decision based models, bipartite graphs, value theory, etc.) which are used to study them. Systems use what is called "architectural" thinking (see Maeir and Reichtein's book for more on that).-Psychohistorian 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing that systems methodology and other higher level abstractions are the best way to analyze many complex systems (as both Hofstadter and Gell-Mann stated), I am disputing the claim that these systems are "irreducible" or "not predicted" or "not explained" by their constituents. At the least, we should have some balanced points of view on this issue and the article should be phrased to reflect what can be considered demonstrable and verifiable.  Also, I was merely quoting the experts Hu suggested.  I am not saying you cannot cite philosophers or systems experts - unless they are making unsupported claims about scientific facts, then the source is indeed dubious and would need to be carefully considered.


 * I perceive an agenda behind the current state of the article which promotes the belief that consciousness is tangible or real, and distinct from the physical brain per se, or is governed by different physical laws. Such beliefs at the least need to be supported. Fourdee 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "I am disputing the claim that these systems are "irreducible" or "not predicted" or "not explained" by their constituents" - are you talking about specific types of complex systems or all complex systems here? I mean, please be clear on what 'these systems' is referring to in that statement.-Psychohistorian 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I dispute that any complex system termed to be "emergent" is known to be or appears to be irreducible to elemental physical causes, and dispute that there is any concrete evidence for that belief. I also, separately, dispute any claims to that effect based on Heisenberg, which as Gell-Mann says are a simple misunderstanding of what uncertainty implies (see Feynman et al on the absurdity of acausality). Fourdee 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's take a short detour here for a second because I think there might be some misunderstanding and I just want to make sure that that misunderstanding, if it does exist, gets cleared up, okay? Emergent properties are those properties which arise as a result of how a set of parts is arranged rather than being contained in the individual parts themselves.  So, it appears that you are saying that you believe that new properties - properties which don't exist in the parts themselves - can't arise as a result of how a set of parts is arranged .  Is that a safe and fair rewording of your position? -Psychohistorian 12:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No I didn't say anything of the sort. I don't know how to state my objection more explicitly; it doesn't really bear complete rephrasing. There is a vast difference between saying that a complex system has unique "properties" (subjective qualities) at a given scale versus saying that those "properties" cannot be deduced, explained or predicted by reducing the system to its constituents (elemental causes).  At any rate, any statements that "reductionism" is invalid or systems are "irreducible" would need some real evidence, and I do not believe any such evidence exists.  At the least, these claims (as with all) need to be cited and balanced with the (prevalent) opposing views. Fourdee 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding your tone, but the tone I'm sensing is one of frustration. Maybe we should drop this?  Honestly, I have no idea what "saying that a complex system has unique "properties" (subjective qualities) at a given scale versus saying that those "properties" cannot be deduced, explained or predicted by reducing the system to its constituents (elemental causes)" is suppossed to mean.  Let's take an example.  The word "phone" is composed of five letters and I'd like to see how you deduce the word "phone" from any of these five letters (without putting them together).-Psychohistorian 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot restate my position in more succinct or clear English, however I have a different angle in mind which I will expose in another section on this page. Also, your example is absurd in many ways.  The question is not whether the letter "p" implies "phone" but whether the written word "phone" is indeed made up of the letters p, h, o, n and e, in that order. Fourdee 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that the example would provide you with a different way to express what your point is. Unfortunately, you seem to have decided not to use it for that.  I think we're reaching a stalemate because I know I don't understand the point you are trying to make and I'm pretty sure noone else working on this article does either.-Psychohistorian 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I utilized your example; what do you not understand about how I utilized it? I agree that there is a basic misunderstanding here but it is certainly not from lack of careful and accurate phrasing on my part.  The subtlety, such as it is, of the difference between "strong emergence" and "weak emergence" seems to be eluding you and I suggest you refer to the not-insignificant bulk of debate already published on this topic.Fourdee 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fallacies of System, Object and Scale
We have strayed far from my intent in disputing the uncited and biased nature of the article as written, however I think I should make clear my position on why the basic premises and assumptions of strong emergence, and systems science in general, are flawed. The following thinking errors play a great role in the modern disputes over ideas such as "emergence", "reductionism", and "consciousness". Forgive me if someone else has stated these fallacies in better terms or if I have made any logical or factual errors. Fourdee 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The expositions or analyses of these two fallacies as laid out below seem to be original research. No references are cited.  They are essentially a kind of philosophical analysis and I think they are too fuzzy and naive or incorrect to be of much use, all the more so because they are contradictory.  The first definition insists that it is a fallacy to use anything except "the big picture", i.e. the totality of the universe, but the second insists that closeup views of details have more merit than "the big picture". Hu 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page, there is nothing wrong with opinions or even original research here. I am just explaining why I think your position is wrong.  The contradiction is not there; I say that on the one hand, your systems don't really exist (whereas you seem to be treating them as concrete, real and discrete), so your conclusions about them are arbitrary, but on the other, if we go ahead and use your systems (which is not unreasonable to do), you are looking at them the wrong way.  A scientific model does not commit either of the fallacies I have described, it acknowledges the vague boundaries of arbitrary systems, the myriad effects on them, and the ultimate source of the behavior: the activity at the smallest scales.  The "big picture" needs to contain a lot of detail or it is just out of focus nonsense, to use your metaphor.  Fourdee 05:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are confusing me with someone else. Hu 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fallacy of System and Object
There is only one true, objective and real system to the best of human knowledge, which is the Universe. Every part of the universe is affected by every other. Any other system you define is completely arbitrary, and any properties of that system you ascribe are similarly arbitrary and subjective.

For example, you may say there is such thing as a human, and that humans genuinely and discretely exist. However, they do not. At what point does the human end and his environment begin? Do you include the air and water he is constantly exchanging with the environment? If so, which molecules in and around him are part of the man and which are part of the environment? At what point does the food he eats become part of him, and at what point is the waste he excretes no longer part? Which of the energy radiating to and from him is part of him and where is his boundary? There is no answer which has a clear basis in scientific fact, the term "man" and your perception of his boundaries are completely arbitrary and subjective, therefore any behaviors or qualities you ascribe to him are similarly arbitrary and contrived, however useful they may be in interpreting what we perceive. Fourdee 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is easy. The concept at the core of what you are asking is "what is an interface?"  "There is no answer which has a clear basis in scientific fact" reveals that intractable hobgoblin you are wrestling with - that systems are scientific.  The best models for systems are those which maximize internal relationships in subsystems and minimize external relationships between subsystems.-Psychohistorian 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no accurate model which ignores the fact that no system (other than the universe itself, perhaps) is isolated, and few are closed. Further there is no accepted way of analyzing the physical world other than the scientific method.  The only place conjecture, philosophy, mysticism and the like have on wikipedia is phrased as such.  That which is not science or logic has no place speaking to "facts".  However, if you wish such statements and beliefs to be reflected in Wikipedia articles, please cite published experts who are speaking within their field and making verifiable assertions which have been peer-reviewed, and please be willing to accept a balanced point of view which acknowledges the scientific perspective.  Fourdee 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "There is no accurate model which ignores the fact that no system (other than the universe itself, perhaps) is isolated, and few are closed."
 * I never said that there was. "Further there is no accepted way of analyzing the physical world other than the scientific method."  Accepted by whom, you?  If so, there isn't much point in going further with this discussion.  I've never found it profitable to argue with a dogmatist.-Psychohistorian 12:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, if you have the time, would you care to explain what other means than the scientific method there is for finding and testing what is "true" about the physical world? What is the epistemological foundation for your systems theories if not the scientific method?  Fourdee 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition of the "fallacy" seems to be saying that the universe must be looked at in totality and is not reducible to parts. The roots of the word analysis mean "to break down" into parts, so this definition would seem to be claiming that analysis is not possible.  This is naive and simplistic.  While it is a truism that everything is inter-related, there are many practical uses for considering parts in isolation from time to time.  For example, a grain of sand rolling down a crater wall on Mars is unlikely to have any measurable effect on your digestion.  Also, it is not helpful to get hung up on exact definitions of boundaries or interfaces if ordinary working definitions are useful.  Practical techniques of analysis must not be discarded in the quest for philosophical purity. Hu 02:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No I'm saying that any system you define is arbitrary (and likely to taint your conclusions about the behavior of that system, since you defined the system yourself, loading the equations from the beginning) and the "more accurate" way to analyze things is to find out what is "more true" i.e. what constitutes that system, down the smallest scale you can find. At the least you need to take into account what is known about what constitutes that system, rather than ignore it, or pretend that the system is not caused by what is happening at the level of quanta, which to the best of our knowledge it is.  Indeed, an accurate model will need to *consider* all effects, even cosmic radiation, because small effects can lead to very big results.  Of course a true simulation of anything is impossible, but that doesn't mean that heading in the opposite direction from what is ultimately true will yield better results - it will certainly yield worse, less accurate results.  Fourdee 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fallacy of Scale
Let us assume for a moment that the objects and systems you define actually exist or that such definitions are useful. Assuming that, it is incorrect to say that the view of an object or system at a larger scale is more accurate than the view at a small scale. Anything observed at the larger scale is intrinsically "less true" than that observed at the smaller.

For example, let's take the earth.
 * From Mars, the earth appears to be a blue speckle.
 * From closer, the earth might appear to be a blue sphere.
 * From the moon, the earth would appear to be blue, white and brown, and a spheroid not a sphere.
 * From the surface, we see that the earth is many colors and has quite a rough surface; it's neither spherical nor spheroid.

Which is the most true description of the Earth? The last, of course. The others are "less true".

Let's take a more subjective example to illustrate the subjectivity involved in this fallacy. Let's say you see a person from a distance whom you find very attractive. However as you get closer you notice a lot of acne or some other feature you do not find attractive. Both observations are "true" in the sense that you genuinely observed and believed them, however they are in outright contradiction. Which observation is "more true"? The latter again.

Observations at a smaller, closer scale are always more valid than those from a distance.

Caveat: This is not to say, of course, that false conclusions and extrapolations drawn from a close scale about that which falls outside what has been observed are true. -- Fourdee 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the idea that the others are "less true"? What is your definition of accuracy?  Is it rooted in science?  Are we, again, seeing the hobgoblin?  Where did you get the idea that observations at a smaller scale are always more valid than those from a distance?  I could be driving down a road that I think is straight, but someone on a mountaintop could look down on it and see that it curves.-Psychohistorian 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Where I "get the idea" is explained in the examples above showing clearly how the less detailed observations are less accurate (perhaps you think the earth is blue or it is a sphere).


 * If you are driving down a road I suggest you wait until you have traversed, or at least seen, the entire road before you make any assumptions about whether it is straight or not, or you will run off the road. Extrapolations and false assumptions about what has not yet been observed fall under the caveat I listed above.  One might believe that the earth appears "flat" from the surface, unless one traveled past the horizon, observed tall objects near the horizon, and made the other important observations to understand that the surface is curved.  It is not necessary to view the earth from space to know that it is not "flat"; its shape can be surmised at the smallest scales, ableit with some time, effort, and sound logic.  Making (bad) assumptions about the unseen does not fall under the concept of close observation - that falls in your realm.


 * Unfortunately for you, the "hobgoblin" of evidence, verifiability, proof, replicability of results and the other standards of science will continue to hound any statements you wish to make on Wikipedia. I suggest at the least you employ citations of experts, even scurilous "experts" speaking oustide their field or using standards of evidence other than those employed by science (like blind assertion, conjecture, mysticism, religion, etc.), or your edits will be promptly deleted per wikipedia policy.  We can get the article unprotected but my first action will be to delete all the uncited and improperly cited statements per policy.  Or you can work with me to come up with a definition for emergence which reflects the differing opinions of scientists, philosophers and systems experts, and retain the opinions which you feel are accurate in the article.  Your choice.  Fourdee 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for you, the proof is in the pudding. The value of systems methodology has proven itself over and over and over again in real world, tangible examples.  First you say that "Observations at a smaller, closer scale are always more valid than those from a distance", then you argue that one should expand the scale rather than shrink it in order to understand (when you say, "I suggest you wait until you have traversed, or at least seen, the entire road before you make any assumptions") - you've tried to construct an argument and are now switching sides in it (first against larger scales and then against smaller scales) so fast that I doubt I'm the only one having trouble keeping up.  You keep harping on what is scientific, but you seem to have misunderstood the distinction between "precision" and "accuracy" (a misunderstanding no sophomore science student is likely to make - these terms have very precise meanings in science).  Further, I have been pushing for more sources.  I suggest you remember that the next time you feel the need to insinuate that I'm intending to flood this article with unsourced commentary.-Psychohistorian 12:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am still very curious what you consider as "proof". I did not "switch sides", I suggested that more than one observation at the closest scale might be necessary.  You proposed a scenario where the driver was (apparently) making assumptions about the unseen, which I explicitly stated was invalid.  You cannot look at a single neuron and know how the brain works, but you can look at a great many neurons and how they are arranged and reach a better understanding of the brain than you can by looking at it as a whole without considering the neruons.  Accuracy at a greater precision is always "more true" than accuracy at a lesser precision.  I did not even use the terms accurate or precise in this section (other than to suggest the content you prefer for the article might be "accurate" which is indeed a misstatement); I don't see why you are lecturing about their specific meaning.  It is "true" to say that pi is 3.14.  It is "more true" to say that pi is 3.14159, and so on as far as you care to take it. Fourdee 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I did use "accurate" above, sorry. "[...] it is incorrect to say that the view of an object or system at a larger scale is more accurate than the view at a small scale."  That is a correct use of accuracy - which means conformance to the true value.  Accuracy and precision are not separate concepts but interrelated, and a true or valid measurement is both accurate and precise - accuracy at a greater precision is "more true" or "more valid" than that at a lesser precision.  Fourdee 07:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, in the case of measurements or observations, a measurement which is imprecise is also inaccurate. Only groups of measurements could be considered accurate but imprecise. Fourdee 07:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition seems to make a fundamental confusion between accuracy and precision. A view of the Earth from Mars can be accurate and truthful, but due to the distance it may be imprecise.  A much more useful approach than this definition is to realize that distant and closeup views both have their uses.  The true fallacy here is assume that overviews and "the big picture" always have less or no merit.  Hu 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is your mistake: accuracy in the mathematical sense does not equate to truth. It is accurate to say that pi is 3.14, but it is not true.  I prefer and have used the terms "more true" and "less true".  Fourdee 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Hu. That is, indeed, correct (as I'm sure everyone here with some measure of scientific training already knows).  Fourdee, taking a number of different measurements and then putting them together to find a different number (an approximation to a true value) is just an example of a characteristic arising as a result of how a number of parts are related.  That's what emergence is.-Psychohistorian 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution and Unprotection - Talk:Emergence/NewVersion
I hope Psychohistorian and Hu and anyone else who cares have been spending this time while the article is protected to find the citations. Bickering and debating does nothing to secure the points of view you prefer in this article. I have already found the citations for any new material I would wish to add to this article, please find citations for the parts you wish to keep and we can hopefully, harmoniously and without 3RR violations and revert wars, bring this article into conformance with the relevant wikipedia policies about NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research. All the unsourced statements are in question, yes, including "neurons can't think". I am willing to be flexible about this and not try to put into effect the policy allowing for summary deletion of unsourced statements, but some "good faith" efforts on your part would be nice. I do consider all of the definition and introduction section to be up for immediate removal of unsourced statements. My idea is to make a copy of the article under the talk section and edit it there before requesting unprotection. Sound fair? Fourdee 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a copy of the article at Talk:Emergence/NewVersion, are you guys willing to work on it there then request the article be unprotected and updated with our new version? Fourdee 03:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps when you take your death-grip off the article it can improve. Hu 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this is going nowhere, do you have any suggestions to resolve this other than my giving up my insistance on the application of established wikipedia policies? Fourdee 02:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. I wish you would apply established Wikipedia policies. I don't think I'm alone in that regard. Releasing your death grip on the article would include agreeing to the following principles (and following up with actions that match the statements), which may be summarized as Assume good faith, No personal attacks, and Civility:


 * Discussing and getting at least a little support and consensus before making drastic edits or taking drastic action.
 * Not beating the article to death with 54 tags or some similarly large number.
 * Not making hasty edits in anger where you revert more than you intend and have to go back later to fix it or in anger where you accidentally delete other people's comments on the Talk page.
 * Not demanding to be the sole arbiter of what is an acceptable reference.
 * Not demanding to be the sole arbiter of who is an acceptable expert to refer to.
 * Not demanding to be the sole arbiter of what qualifications experts should have.
 * Not insisting that experts must be restricted to narrowly defined fields.
 * Not insisting or implying that the article be restricted to "Physics, Physical Science, or the Epistemology of Science".
 * Not insisting that the Scientific Method is the only acceptable Point of View for the article.
 * Not demanding unilaterally that the article be frozen (protected) without discussing it first. You do have the right to send it to Request for Page Protection, but you are not cooperative when you exercise that right unilaterally.
 * Not unilaterally referring the article to the limbo of RfC, where it remains frozen. You do have the right to refer it there, but you aren't being very cooperative by doing so unilaterally.
 * Not making ad hominem attacks on editors, such as the baseless statement you wrote: "Hu believes no citations are needed".
 * Not insisting on the letter of Wikipedia law with regard to deleting material that does not meet the epitome of Wikipedia standards. In other words, since the article has been established for some time, let it evolve by a series of modest edits, getting feedback or allowing a bit of time along the way.  We are well aware of the Wikipedia standards that you have quoted in bold, but it would not be cooperative if you were to insist on immediate or rapid application of them without allowing time for the article to evolve toward the ideal state.  Frankly, this topic is deep and interesting and complex enough to require considerable time to approach a high quality state, and in the meantime, even imperfect information or exposition or less than complete references or less than impeccable citations will still be useful to thousands of readers.

Now you can go ahead and quote chapter and verse of sections of the guidelines and policies, but all in all, if you eased up on your insistence on you being the gatekeeper, the article would have never been frozen, or once frozen it would have been unfrozen long ago.

— Hu 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I find your novel definition for ad hominem amusing, the rest of the list is perplexing (is that ad hominem too?) given how hard I have tried to work with you and reach a reasonable compromise. This article is not useful in the present state, it is factually inaccurate, uncited, and presents a mystical (unscientific) point of view.  I fear for any innocent person who stumbles on this article and walks away believing that mysticism and idealism (in the philosophical sense) have any basis in fact.  It is better to have no article than a lot of nonsense.  However if you would like to properly cite the mysticism there's nothing I could do to get rid of it.  Feel free to ask for the page to be unprotected, I certainly won't contest it.  Fourdee 05:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Hu's use of "ad hominem" was rather decoupled from its actual meaning, however I believe your amusement comes accross as unnecessarily arrogant and smug. Please do not escalate this matter further, whatever the provocation. - JustinWick 09:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Geeze can we quit this bickering already? It seems we're going to need more outside opinions or something, because neither Fourdee nor Hu seem willing to alter their tacks.  FYI, Hu, accusing someone of an "ad hominem" attack, without apparently understanding what it is, is unproductive.  Ad hominem attacks are attacks on a person's character designed to discedit an argument they are making.  I don't know whether or not you believe that no citations are needed, however accurate or inaccurate, this is hardly an attack (of any kind) on your character.  I do not believe that Fourdee thinks you are a bad person (nor do I), but I do believe that you are escalating simple comments in a very unhelpful manner.  I think Fourdee has sought outside help (I occasionally do the RfC thing, this article is of particular importance to me) and does not in any way wish to be the sole determinator of anything.  His views seem to line up with established Wikipedia policy, but if you can cite WP policy that contradicts his ideas, please do so.  Also, if you would please cease the use of loaded terms like "demand" and "insist" - you have systematically escalated what should be a scholarly debate.  This should not be personal.  I do not care who you are, or who Fourdee is, etc, but I do want this article to contain only information for which there is a credible source.  Given the amount of material freely available, there is no excuse for why it does not.  I do admit, my formal training has biased me towards scientific thinking, however I do not believe that Wikipedia official policy recognizes the validity of using scientific findings to support metaphysical or philosophical concepts.  - JustinWick 09:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Our definitions of ad hominem accord. The fact is I am all in favor of solid citations and my formal training has also biased me towards a scientific outlook, though Fourdee assumes otherwise.  The edit record shows that I created the first reference section (tiny though it was) and properly formatted Wikipedia style reference before Fourdee reverted it and froze the article.  Thank you for looking in here and I look forward to working with you. Hu 12:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow
I mean, I skimmed some of that, but wow. You know, the articles on George W Bush, Israel, Stem Cells and Evolution aren't even marked as controversial, and just look at this page!

First, I have a suggestion on an approach that I think is more likely to resolve the dispute. Why not focus, at least in the introduction, on describing how the concept of emergence has developed and been applied in a number of different disciplines, instead of trying to definitively say what *emergence* *is*.

Second, some more general thoughts: While I agree with many of his points, I believe that Fourdee has conflated the imposition of a model on a system with the determination of the causal relationships amongst the whole and its components. Clearly, it is incorrect to say that the complete dynamics of a (deterministic) system are not implied by the dynamics of its individual interactions. However, by embracing the broadest possible definition of emergence, and failing to explain the process by which the concept has been extended, the current article makes it seem like this is the claim.

No one makes the argument that the mathematical operators that compose a nonlinear dynamical system such as, say, the Logistic map do not "explain" or "predict" the function's resultant behavior. The only reason for this I can think of is that in the context it's abundantly clear that the behavior under consideration is the result of systemic properties: the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Also, it's interesting to note that the article on Complex Systems doesn't even mention emergence. It does, however, link to Synergetics, which deals with emergence in the more limited sense of self-organization. It would seem to me that this is the narrowest, most mathematical definition of emergence, and an important historical motivator for the concept. This article should definitely have more than a couple of sentences to say on the role of entropy in the matter (pun intended!).

Finally, here is a quote from a paper called "Perpetuating Evolutionary Emergence" by Alastair Channon, which I think is a nice introduction to the way that the same core concept has been approached from a number of different perspectives:


 * Cariani identiﬁed the three current tracts of thought on emergence, calling them “computational”, “thermodynamic” and “relative to a model”. Computational emergence is related to the manifestation of new global forms, such as ﬂocking behavior and chaos, from local interactions.  Thermodynamic emergence is concerned with issues such as the origins of life, where order emerges from noise.  The emergence relative to a model concept deals with situations where observers need to change their model in order to keep up with a system’s behavior. This is close to Steels’ concept of emergence, which refers to ongoing processes which produce results invoking vocabulary not previously involved in the description of the system’s inner components – "new descriptive categories".

The paper is available online if anyone would like to look up the references to Cariani and Steels.

Oh, and Fourdee, while I believe I'm on your side as far as the philosophical argument goes, I believe Hu is right that you're abusing the rules in order to get your way. The rules are there to help wikipedia improve, but don't you think that if you'd been a bit less hostile, and willing to bend a few rules, the article would already be in a much improved state by now? Kyle Cronan 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "while I believe I'm on your side as far as the philosophical argument goes" Could you please, then, explain what Fourdee's side is?  His inability to express it clearly is starting to make me feel like I'm playing whack-a-mole.-Psychohistorian 12:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The above, for example, is ad hominem: attributing abilities or lack thereof (this is the second or third genuine ad hominem for you; a wikilawyer would have you plastered with warnings). I don't see what you are confused about - I do not believe "strong emergence" is true or supportable, but at the least it needs to be balanced and cited.  Which part of that don't you understand?  Fourdee 19:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote earlier, "I cannot restate my position in more succinct or clear English". Now I've written "His inability to express it clearly..".  I don't think repeating what someone else said about themselves can be considered an ad hominem.  As for strong emergence, I was hoping you'd explain how the "phone" example I used was not an example of strong emergence.-Psychohistorian 19:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I already utilized and addressed your example above. Fourdee 19:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "inability to express it clearly" is not a logical conclusion from "cannot restate more clearly" - the former is an attack on the person, the latter is a claim that the position was already as clear as it could be. Perhaps I could take your words "I don't think repeating..." and turn it into "Psychohistorian doesn't think."  Fourdee 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kyle for some excellent information and thoughtful suggestions. Hu 12:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC) I have linked Emergence in the Complex system article. Hu 16:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I welcome Kyle's proposal, it seems to resolve the dispute. The question is whether we should unprotect the article before or after it is improved. In its current state I would still like to see tags for claims which are uncited, dubious or appear to be original research. Fourdee 19:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Kyle, I believe I'm going to have to "side" with you on this. I personally think that this talk page is as valuable if not moreso than the article - indeed if someone were to copy it and edit out the bickering/"ad hominem" attacks, it would definitely make for interesting reading on the contraversy of the subject. I would really like to see whatever non-scientific subject material is appropriate in this article, but I am strongly in favor of a clear idealogical dividing line between scientific ideas, and ideas from other realms. I cannot believe that scientific ideas are the only ideas of importance, and I do believe that the general concept of emergence is far broader than its implications for science (much like the concept of "affinity" or "blue"). I think that Fourdee is likely to approach this kind of issue differently in the future so as to upset less people while still achieving our objective of an Encyclopedia that does not use science/psuedoscience to lead less knowledgable individuals to believe things that are not necessarily accurate. I would be in favor of editing a second version until people could "agree" (more or less) on it, and then unprotecting the article. I will say that this talk page would make an excellent example for neophytes of what exactly not to do to resolve problems like this (which do plague a decent amount of borderline science articles on Wikipedia) - I hope everyone here has learned from this experience (I know that I have, and I've barely been involved). I think it would be good for those involved to apologize, if not for what choices they made, exactly, but for their consequences. Is there official policy or a guide somewhere about what to do about mingling of science and nonscience on Wikipedia? Science is a dangerous tool if misused because most people trust it without really understanding it, and it must be treated carefully in a situation like this. I, for one, would like to better learn how to combat problematic situations like this one and purge this misuse of science (and lack of good sources) from Wikipedia.

Also, perhaps it is good to have a section of the article which contains contraversial ideas and are more explicitly marked (the entire concept of Emergence cannot be considered contraversial, can it?) Thanks for your input, Kyle, and I hope this is resolved soon so that all involved can go back to writing good articles :) - JustinWick 23:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Psychohistorian, about your question on what Fourdee's point of view is, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I believe it basically comes down to the necessity for very careful use of language, particularly for a subject that is, I think, still not thoroughly understood but perceived to have wide-ranging implications, not only within the sciences. This is essentially what I was arguing in my third paragraph, above, by suggesting that it is understandable that one might arrive at ridiculous conclusions concerning irreducibility given the article's current state.  And I think it's also what Justin is referring to when he says that science can become "a dangerous tool" in the hands of those who don't really practice the scientific method.


 * "I believe it basically comes down to the necessity for very careful use of language", hey, I'm all for "very careful use of language", but unless you are able to state some set of requirements as to what is and what is not "very careful use of language", the post I'm replying to here isn't very helpful.-Psychohistorian 15:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll check in from time to time to lend a hand with the new version, if that's how we're going to proceed. Kyle Cronan 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Paper on weak vs. strong emergence
Here's a paper that would seem to be relevant to our discussion:

There's a lot of philosophical language that just makes no sense to me, but this section in particular seems helpful:


 * Since [strongly] emergent phenomena supervene on underlying processes, in this sense the underlying processes constitute and generate the emergent phenomena. And emergent phenomena are autonomous from the underlying processes since they exert an irreducible form of downward causal influence. Nevertheless, strong emergence has a number of failings, all of which can be traced to strong downward causation.


 * Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.

It would seem that this distinction between "strong emergence" and "weak emergence" is primarily of concern to Philosophy. The author's characterization of weak emergence, later in the paper, captures the more CS/physics oriented view of emergence as new "global forms" arising out of local behavior, as well as the more evolutionary view of emergence as requiring increasingly sophisticated models of the system's dynamics (ie, open-ended evolution--see Universal Constructor).

I believe what we must certainly avoid is giving the impression that these views of emergence, inasmuch as they represent current scientific theory, somehow support strong emergence, a philosophical position about irreducibility. Kyle Cronan 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that the article states, "There is no scientific consensus about what weak and strong forms of emergence are", what is meant by "we must certainly avoid is giving the impression that these views of emergence, inasmuch as they represent current scientific theory, somehow support strong emergence"?-Psychohistorian 15:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me offer a different phrasing: Since there is no consensus, we should not phrase anything as if there were a consensus.  Sound reasonable?  I disagree that there is not a general consensus among scientists, but there is no reason we cannot offer all available, cited, peer-reviewed statements by experts speaking within their recognized field, whether they be philosophers or scientists.  On another topic, I am still curious to know what system of epistemology you count as qualified to determine evidence or proof of the nature of the physical world other than the scientific method.  It's not that important though, we can certainly incorporate philosophical conjecture into this article - phrased as such.  It would be quite appropriate to do so in fact.  Fourdee 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we're talking past each other. As I stated earlier, systems methodology uses architectural thinking (which is quite well explained in [ http://www.amazon.com/Art-Systems-Architecting-Second/dp/0849304407/sr=8-2/qid=1165601192/ref=sr_1_2/103-7917729-1711838?ie=UTF8&s=books this book] written by Eberhardt Rechtin and Mark Maier.  Architectural thinking has been demonstrated to be an effective way of thinking which has historically been in use since -at least- the age of Vitruvius (and I'd argue that it could easily be dated back to ancient Egypt).  While science has been in the lime light for quite a long time, architectural thinking has been doing its part in those areas of study which focus on complex systems (economics, urban planning, etc.) for centuries and, lately (as the tools - principally computer power - have become available) in fields such as biology, ecology, etc. (to study what science is poorly designed for - emergent properties).  Like science, architectural thinking is a philosophical viewpoint (this is very important - science is rooted in philosophy - the distinction you are trying to make between science and philosophy is a false one as science cannot be stripped of philosophy (see Philosophy of science).  Like science, it has a demonstrable track record in solving problems.  It can handle problems which science can't (and science can handle problems that it can't).  "Since there is no consensus, we should not phrase anything as if there were a consensus. Sound reasonable?"
 * Changing the wording a bit, we shouldn't put anything in the article which is likely to be disputed unless it is given a reliable source. From the day I started in on this article, I've supported that.-Psychohistorian 18:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nor should we leave anything like that in the article. Fourdee 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As to systems theory not utilizing the scientific method which part of the following does systems theory/science/thinking/methodology not employ:
 * Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
 * Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
 * Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypothesis and theory)
 * Experiments (tests of all of the above)
 * I am very curious. Fourdee 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, again, impressive bickering skills, guys. Psychohistorian, returning to the question of What is the difference between strong and weak emergence, it's almost beside the point. The important distinction is that philosophers are interested in what _causes_ emergent phenomena whereas scientists are interested in what _explains_ them. Read the page on Irreducible (philosophy). If certain philosophers want to say that an emergent (and thoughtful) mind is caused by more than just the activities of (dumb) neurons, because that seems to help their argument that free will is real and not just an illusion, then that's fine. The important thing (from the perspective of people like Fourdee and, yes, myself) is that the scientific theory on emergence not be misconstrued as to somehow deny materialism, or something like that. Kyle Cronan 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is going to go anywhere. If X thousand lines of text haven't even managed to explain to Psychohistorian what the problem is, let alone what a reasonable resolution might be, a few thousand more aren't likely to be of any benefit.  I guess it is important to him that the article make statements which regard strong emergence as a fact - which I do not believe he yet understands the implications of or objections to.  I think if everyone is agreeing that the article should reflect reliable, cited expert opinions, the core of the dispute is resolved and we can request unprotection and procede with editting under the 3RR and other relevant policies.  It does not seem that Hu or Psychohistorian are willing to accept the offer of collaborating on a new version before unprotection, or any other form of consensus or collaboration on this.  It's not worth the energy to offer it again and again while they obfuscate and stall to protect the phrasing of strong emergence as a fact.  If they want to provide peer-reviewed expert citations, fine, otherwise the uncited and objectional should be removed.Fourdee 18:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an archive. Please continue on the Talk:Emergence page.