Talk:Emergence/Archive 3

Now that some new parties have expressed an interest and are contributing, I think the time has arrived to archive the dispute that began over tagging for citations and led to the article being protected (frozen) December 3. I have archived it and then copied three specific remarks on subject matter (edited for concision) to a section following, to refresh their currency to help guide the development of the article content, since they seemed especially noteworthy and cogent. If this is premature, we can work the material back in (not a revert, please, as I am adding some original remarks of my own below), but I'm confident the timing is right. Hu 17:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but in the process I inadvertently clobbered an edit by Fourdee. I have placed it in the Archive 2 since it seems to be appropriate there. — Hu 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a number of edits based on the start made by Kyle to Talk:Emergence/NewVersion, comprising of the following changes (which are in the context of some suggestions for next steps, below):

• Retained Kyle's work on the introduction mostly as is, for the time being.
• Systematized the References and Bibliography according the Wikipedia implementation of Harvard referencing (reasoning and discussion below).
• Moved a paragraph about the three orders of emergent structures up into sub-intro of the "Emergent structures in nature" because I thought it was sufficiently high level to belong there, and also I think it is a fascinating analysis.
• Trimmed the "Non-Living Physical Systems" sub-section because it was long and verbose, particularly on Temperature. I removed a sentence or phrase here and there.
• Moved a paragraph from the "Biological systems" sub-section up into the "Physical sub-section and reversed the order of the sentences so that they go in order of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, which is a nice progression and seque to the next section.
• Moved a couple of the "Biological systems" paragraphs around for more orderly presentation.
• Highlighted the terms "weak" and "strong", which is not strictly Wikipedia style, but I think they are important enough.
• Split out the stock market example into an Economics sub-section.
• Added a statement about pathways in landscape architecture. I spent over an hour looking for an online reference without success. They exist and I am depending on our architecture expert to provide one!
• Restored the three-column organization of the See Also section so that it takes less vertical space.

Hu 17:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

For the next steps onward I have the following suggestions:

• More citations to the references (of course).
• Delay any further work on the introduction until the body of the article is in good shape. Then doing the introduction becomes an easier task of distillation and summary.
• Sections on Strong Emergence, Weak Emergence, and Criticisms of the emergence paradigm. There could potentially be separate articles on Strong and Weak, if the sections get large enough. There could even potentially be some discussion of mysticism, not as the primary focus (since I agree with others that this is strongly and primarily a scientific/technical topic), but as a counterpoint.
• No excision or neglect of discussion of emergence as it relates to Intelligence, Consciousness, Societies, Governance, Economics, Architecture, Software, Memes and other fields.
• Remember that you can put very radical changes into this "New Version" sandbox without prior discussion, but if they really are radical, it might be best to put them in and then immediately revert one's self. This gets them into the record for diffing and comparing and discussion without interrupting the regular flow of edits. I trust that the medium revamp I have just made will not be seen as severe or radical, but will be seen as evolutionary.

Hu 17:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Hu. However, I find this new introduction completely objectionable, still uncited, and completely counter to the balanced view which is the only resolution to our dispute.

"Emergence is the appearance of systemic behavior that can not be explained as the mere aggregate effect of the system's constituent interactions, or be analyzed at the level of the constituent parts. The concept is related to the old observation that, often, "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" (synergy). The term is also generally employed in scientific contexts to describe the inability to readily explain macroscale phenomena in terms of understood microscale dynamics."

"Cannot be explained", "the whole is more than the sum of its parts", and "inability". Those are not facts. It seems to be you ignored all of my objections and came back with an even stronger phrasing of your view. I also think the introduction is the first part we need to address, so that a consistent definition for or explanation of emergence can be used throughout the article, as well defining the tone to be used. Were I to edit this new version at the moment I would delete a lot of it. Fourdee 18:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we leave the introduction as-is for the time-being, since by working the article into good shape, all issues will get straightened out, and a good introduction will emerge at that time. Hu 18:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe you left the introduction as it was, this is an entirely new one. The article builds on the introduction. If we don't get the phrasing right up front, the whole thing will have to be redone. I would prefer something like:

Emergence is a term used in Philosophy, Systems Theory and the Sciences to describe the appearance of complex organized systems. It is generally divided into two perspectives, that of "weak emergence" and "strong emergence". Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level. Strong emergence, which is a view not widely held in the sciences but proposed as a philosophical theory of etiology, epistemology and ontology, describes complex systems as not being explained by their constituent interactions, in other words that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

-- Fourdee 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words, if you are building on the "cannot be explained", "inability to explain" and "more than the sum of parts" points of view and using them as facts, your edits will be to no end and will have be reverted, as these are not accepted facts, even if cited. Assuming good citations, these concepts will still need to be phrased as opinion because they are hotly contested. Fourdee 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

No, as I explained above, I left the introduction basically the way Kyle had changed it (it was Kyle who made "an entirely new one"), and no, please don't put words in my mouth (again) (I am not building on what you suppose) and please don't threaten "your edits will be to no end". Please be more cooperative. Please recognize that I had just done a substantial amount of work on the new version and a substantial amount of explanation free of rancor in the spirit of cooperation (8 minutes before you attacked me (again) with "It does not seem that Hu or Psychohistorian are willing to accept the offer of collaborating on a new version before unprotection". It was essentially a simultaneous edit, but the edits do show that a) At least Kyle and I are collaborating cooperatively, and b) 14 minutes further on you continue to bicker. If you must bicker, please at least get your facts straight, but I do suggest that we others are cooperating and you are increasingly becoming the odd man out of that realm. Now, let's hope that this last little bit was an accident and, now that work on the new version has begun in earnest, that cooperation will prevail. Hu 18:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You still don't know what a personal attack is. A personal attack would be saying something about your person, character, qualifications, abilities, etc., not what you do or think (even incorrectly attributed, which would be a mistake). By your own definition of ad hominem, you are guilty of it in the very paragraph where you complain about it. Fourdee 19:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of my remarks of 18:50 UTC just above, I will not respond at this time beyond this sentence. Hu 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, please do live by your own rules and requests. Anyway, let's further look at what I said, since you continued to "bicker" while requesting that the bickering stop:

"I do not believe you left the introduction as it was, this is an entirely new one."

This is correct, you did not leave the introduction as it was (even after Kyle's changes) and it is an entirely new one. This is phrased as "i do not believe". I do not say that you are solely responsible for the current version, I make no claims of fact other than I didn't believe you left the introduction as it was (which is true, you did not) and that it is a new version. You are saying "let's leave this alone" right after you edited it yourself.

"In other words, if you are building on the..."

Note the "if". Subtle I guess, but significant.

"It does not seem that Hu or Psychohistorian are willing to accept the offer of collaborating on a new version before unprotection."

It was a simultaneous edit and correctly reflects the fact that you ignored the offer for almost 4 days. Also note again my phrasing - "it does not seem".

It's also curious that I offered what I thought the introduction should read and immediately afterward you accuse me of not cooperating. Bickerbickerbicker... and please stop bickering. Editeditedit... and please don't edit. Attackattackattack... and please don't attack. First time I've had the chance to use it on Wikipedia, but - LOL. Fourdee 19:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, In the spirit of my remarks of 18:50 UTC just above, I will not respond at this time beyond this sentence. Hu 19:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of not not responding, this is all the response I will make. I reserve the right to further expound on not not responding at a future date, and to not not respond further. Fourdee 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Hu 20:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being negative and making assumptions, Hu. Thanks for working on the collaboration. Fourdee 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, we could just delete this section except for my proposed introduction, this bickering is indeed not productive. Fourdee 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

With the article recently added to WikiProject Physics (which I support), and the article under heavy dispute at present, I think it is worth keeping in the very front of our minds that emergence and emergent behavior are concepts that are developed in many disciplines across the academic community.

For example, in the social sciences alone, there is a long and complex history. Writings on emergent outcomes of human social behavior go back at least to the 6th century BC, in both ancient Chinese and ancient Greek thought. In the second millenium, there was a thread of such thought, primarily but not exclusively in economics, from late medieval through the mid-nineteenth centuries, followed by an explosion of such thought, across the social sciences, after about 1860 with PJ Proudhon, Carl Menger, Emile Durkheim, Michael Polanyi, Friedrich Hayek and Thomas Kuhn. In the late twentieth century there was substantial work in a variety of fields including group cooperation, social justice, coordination theory, 'governance' (Political Science), the progress of 'science' within academic communities, and of course many areas within economics. A quick search of any of the social science research databases will produce a slew of articles and books.

I do not have time to get heavily involved in writing this article (at least, not for a few weeks), and would choose to stay out of the current contentious debate in any case, but I do think it is worthwhile to keep this perspective in mind when a number of you are proposing to substantially reshape the article right now. I hope this was a constructive thought and helpful to your work in improving the article. I believe it is important that the article remain consciously and explicitly cross-disciplinary, from the physical or hard sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Engineering, Computer Science, etc.) to the natural sciences (Neuro-biology, Geology, Meteorology, Hydrology), to the social sciences (Sociology, Political Science, Economics, etc.). (N2e 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You raise interesting points to explore. Hu 21:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I had mentioned before that emergence is not the exclusive domain of the hard science, but think I was ignored. Hopefully, another person saying the same thing will catch some people's attention.-Psychohistorian 01:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying philosophy and systems thinking should not be included the article. In fact it wouldn't be much of an article without mentioning those views. Fourdee 02:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And, once more, you are making the mistake of thinking that we'd need to -add- philosophy if we restricted ourselves to science.-Psychohistorian 13:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian's right on this one, Fourdee (Science is a branch of Philosophy). However I agree with your sentiment that non-scientific views should not intermingle heavily with the scientific views (at least not to the point where it is confusing to the average reader). - JustinWick 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific statements are not a kind of philosophy in the usual sense. Philosophy has proclaimed the theory of science (i.e. the scientific method) under its purview, scientists have not proclaimed themselves philosophers. You are not using the term "philosophy" in the most common way, so it's hardly reasonable for you to claim that your different use of the term than mine invalidates what I am saying. This seems like an intentional semantic quibble when you know quite well what I mean. Here is how I am using the term philosophy from m-w.com:

"1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts"

"2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs"

It is not useful to introduce a semantic niggle with someone who is using a term, in conversation, in its customary sense. Fourdee 21:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Science was called "Natural philosophy" for many years. As a practical matter, it doesn't matter whether scientists are philosophers or not. What does matter is that philosophers have had some useful and interesting things to say about Emergence, and thus are included in the article. Hu 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would read the article you linked yourself, you would find that "natural philosophy" did not employ the scientific method (specifically validation through experiment) and was therefore not science. Fourdee 22:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

""natural philosophy" did not employ the scientific method (specifically validation through experiment) and was therefore not science". More to the point, it is experiment in a controlled environment - a laboratory. Seems I mentioned the role of the laboratory in an earlier message of mine.-Psychohistorian 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You may "mention" the laboratory as often as you like, however that will not make it any more intrinsically part of the scientific method, which it is not. There are sciences which cannot readily use a laboratory - astronomy and the social sciences come to mind, no doubt there are many more; I'm curious how geology can conduct laboratory validations of plate tectonics or mountain building or the like. Computer simulations are a recent development and don't really constitute an experiment; they are a mere model, a hypothesis and prediction. Fourdee 20:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to make assumptions about my reading or my state of knowledge. Of course "natural philosophy" was only the foundation of science and not "science as we know it now". However, what practical consequence to the editing of the article are you suggesting by focusing on the word "philosophy"? I don't think you've made one. Hu 23:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You said that science was called something which it was not; you made a factual error and an incorrect statement which could've been resolved by reading the link, assuming a standard degree of comprehension. "Natural philosophy" was not science since it did not employ the scientific method. You appear to have meant to say "the study of nature was once called 'natural philsophy' instead of 'science'" which I agree with and is pertinent to Psychohistorian's quibble. Strange that you accuse me of being "focused" on the term "philosophy" when I am not the one who insists on starting (incorrect) semantic arguments about it. Of course I am going to respond to false statements and any challenges against what I have said, I cannot resist - perhaps it is a flaw of mine. Also, please indent your responses properly; it makes things much easier to follow. Further, it behooves a man to admit his mistakes rather than niggle his way out of them. It certainly saves some typing and energy. Fourdee 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a simple statement that you quibbled over. It behooves a person (and a man too) to not niggle or bicker their way into quibbles. So, the question remains, what practical consequence to the editing of the article are you suggesting by focusing on the word "philosophy"? I don't think you've made one. Hu 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are still (and persistently) not indenting your responses. I hope you don't mind that I do it for you as I find it difficult to read this without indents. There is no practical consequence to the semantics of "philosophy" at all; perhaps you should focus on the source of the niggle, Psychohistorian. I am merely responding to the both of you. The logical chain of events in this is readily clear above. Fourdee 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are the one who started to focus on philosophy vs. science. I just pointed out how scientifically illiterate that is. In addition to the book I recommended earlier, I also recommend this book. It really would help this article if the editors working on it were educated on the subject of the article and related fields -Psychohistorian 19:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just used the term philosophy correctly above, and you tried to correct me with an improper usage. Insofar as philosophy is usually considered to be about abstract rather than concrete knowledge, as I quoted from the dictionary above (perhaps the dictionary is wrong too), while the scientific method may be an example of philosophy, scientific statements per se are not. You may use continue the term philosophy to mean all knowledge, but that is a peculiar, even absurd usage. We might as well do away with all these labels for fields of study and call everyone philosophers - I think most will prefer to continue to use philosophy to mean "a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means" or "an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs" or perhaps definition 1a(1) from the dictionary: "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts" (if you need the definition for "technical", I'd suggest the dictionary). QED. Fourdee 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you all think of this as a starting point? Can we all agree that this is an appropriate way to define the overall concept, before the article gets into all the nuance and controversy, that is?

Emergence is the appearance of systemic behavior that can not be explained as the mere aggregate effect of the system's constituent interactions.

Fourdee, I presume that you're opposed to "can not be explained," but I have tried to temper that with "mere aggregate effect." A decent compromise? What I'm trying to say here is not that the systemic behavior isn't an effect of the individual interactions, but that to arrive at the effect you must do more than simply "sum up" the constituent parts. In fact, we often just don't have the analytical tools to follow cause and effect all the way to the level of systemic behavior, so it becomes necessary to study the system from a different, higher-level perspective. Kyle Cronan 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that sentence; it is this "whole is more than the sum of its parts" theory which I dispute is an accepted fact. It should be phrased as a theory rather than fact, and should be distinguished from weak emergence which doesn't make that claim. Something which describes emergence as a whole would be more appropriate for the first sentence than a description of strong emergence alone. I like the following well enough, seems to be balanced:

Emergence is a term used in Philosophy, Systems Theory and the Sciences to describe the appearance of complex organized systems. It is generally divided into two perspectives, that of "weak emergence" and "strong emergence". Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level. Strong emergence, which is a view not widely held in the physical sciences but proposed as a philosophical theory of etiology, epistemology and ontology, describes complex systems as not being explained by their constituent interactions, in other words that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

-- Fourdee 01:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We could remove the "not widely held in the physical sciences" bit I suppose, if that is objectionable for some reason. It is probably sufficient to describe strong emergence as a philosophical theory to make it clear that it is not a scientific finding. Otherwise I think the introduction needs to be phrased in a balanced manner which doesnt make claims of fact about irreducibility. Fourdee 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got the right of it. Let's just focus on the article. It would take too long to bring some editors up to speed on the subject and the Wikipedia discussion page is not the right environment to teach anyone a subject they don't want to learn. Having said that, I think "systemic behavior" is too vague to be meaningful as it is in the sentence you've offered. Perhaps, "When some organization of parts creates qualities which are not directly traceable to those parts (such as when a string of letters produce words), those qualities are said to be emergent." Also, "to describe the appearance of complex organized systems" is redundant. Definitionally, complex systems are systems which have emergent properties, so that sentence is just noise. Further, saying that something is a philosophical theory does not exclude it from being scientific - that's another error that I thought we already covered.-Psychohistorian 01:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just cite the definition(s) given by an expert or experts. I'm not willing to accept the ones you are offering (manufacturing it seems), for "philosophy", "science" or "emergence". Fourdee 01:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of verifiability, I support the use of definitions given by expert/s from reliable sources. These definitions (admittedly, not word for word as I was writing earlier off the top of my head - quotes will be provided) are in the books I linked to earlier and I will provide proper citations for them.-Psychohistorian 13:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been two weeks now. Also, as I am sure you aware, books are not necessarily reliable - publications from a peer-reviewed journal are the most reliable sources. However any quotation from a book by a purported expert would be a great place to start. A scholarly text (school textbook) would work well for this; perhaps you know some from the systems theory curriculum. If we could see a book listed as required reading for a university course on this subject, that would be a great start (although I have seem some questionable books used even in university classes). At any rate, please offer a quote we can work from rather than paraphrasing it. Thanks for the (repeated) offer of providing citations for this article. Fourdee 18:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"It's been two weeks now." Your point? Wikipedia is a voluntary effort. Between working full time, going to school part time, preparing for a certification in IT, and a couple of dozen other things, Wikipedia is not a priority for me. Its something I do in the moments between doing other things. "Also, as I am sure you aware, books are not necessarily reliable - publications from a peer-reviewed journal are the most reliable sources." Fascinating, and where are your publications from a peer-reviewed journal? Texts written by noted and highly recognized experts in the field are many times more reliable than anything you've provided. Finally, this is the discussion page. Kyle did not offer a quote, so I was using the same level of verification. Having said that, its cool to use a quote (and, in fact, I already provided one a couple of weeks ago).-Psychohistorian 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to add any content to the article, I would be happy to delete all the uncited portions and leave it at that. As soon as there is cited material which I disagree with, I will consider finding solid citations to support its removal or balancing. Which doesn't appear to be likely any time soon. Fourdee 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So when you wrote "I have already found the citations for any new material I would wish to add to this article", you were bluffing? Hu 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that a polite way of saying "lying"? I meant the quotes above from Hofstadter and Gell-Mann, and perhaps a favorite of mine from Feynman. Fourdee 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article by Bela Banathy describing the difference between traditional science and systems methodology.-Psychohistorian 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you are offering something from the "international society of systems sciences" to try to back up your claim that systems theory isn't science. I am considering not responding any further to you as I have difficulty following the sort of logic you employ; I'm sure it is a failure on my fault. Fourdee 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Fourdee, I've generally agreed with your views on here, if not always the way you go about things, but... I think a cursory evaluation of the isss website makes out claims (which I'm not qualified to substantiate) that "Systems Science" is fundamentally different from (and seemingly "incompatable" with) "Classical Science". Both are philosophies of how to extract "truth" (which is defined differently in both cases, often very differently from the intuitive definition that non-scientists would use) from the universe via observations, but they have different goals and methods. Check out this page Conceptual Foundations of Systems Science at the site (look at the diagram which sums up most of the point of the page). I do not know how trustworthy the site is, or its standing in its field (it would seem to have a high standing, but my accademic training is not in this field). For right or wrong, people in our society are taught to blindly trust science (if you do not understand science, there can be no other kind of trust, and most people do not understand science). I think the reason that this works is because science has useful results - TVs, Cars, medical care, etc... If System Sciences starts producing, real, useful results that people can tanglibly appreciate, they too may learn to trust it in general (I'm slightly skeptical, but do not feel it is unreasable to think). I just hope that in this article, there's a clear distinction made between the methods of classical science (what you refer to simply as science) and "Systems Science". I would argue that most things that are named something like "X science" are, invariably, not science. Even my own Computer Science education taught me that most of it is mathematics and theory rather than empirical probing of the universe. I think that Systems Science is a noteworthy field, and its views should be represented in this article (and separated from more solidly established views), however that readers should remain (rightlyfully, IMHO) skeptical of its claims, as it is not yet mature in the same way something like Physics, which has been around for hundreds of years, is. I think these views, and other philosophical views (and yes, Science is just another philosophy, albeit one with especially good results - I mean, why in principle *should* someone think that the universe must be run by a set of static rules that can be observed and figured out... but so far that seems to work, so maybe it's "true") of note should be represented, but that people should not be allowed to believe, after reading this page, that those views are somehow scientific (no matter how intelligent and important the people who thought them up were). I'm really starting to become upset at the level of bickering that's currently being used by both "sides" of this argument, the level of knowledge indicated by Fourdee, Hu, and Psychohistorian would seem to indicate an age level that is not, however, indicated by the conduct, and I think that's very unfortunate. Lets just get this article figured out already. Oh, and have good references :) You're right about that, Fourdee, I dont' want to see a bunch of unreferenced BS in this article by a few months time... if I do I think I might swear off Wikipedia for good! After all, that policy is there for a reason (things like Emergence are complicated and we shouldn't trust the assertions of random editors, like myself, but rather published, verifiable experts). - JustinWick 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Justin, you're right. I've let my frustation take over in this article. Frankly, I am frustrated because there is an editor working on this article who has -not- received training in the field (am I right in assuming that I'm the only editor actively working on this article who has received graduate level training in systems methodology?), has consistently gotten very basic stuff in the field (such as not knowing that the definition of complex systems is systems with emergent properties) and outside of the field (such as not knowing the difference between "precision" and "accuracy") wrong, has made preposterous claims (such as insinuating that a very highly distinguished NASA engineer was ignorant about science), etc. etc. etc. AND has attempted to hijack the article. I am frustrated because he is not simply ignorant, but obstinate about remaining ignorant. I have let that frustration have too much free reign in the way I've posted in this discussion page because I've tried to put myself in a position of educating this editor through well over six years of training when that editor doesn't want to learn. I have made the mistake of focusing on discussing the subject in the discussion page when I should be focusing on discussing how to make a better article. I owe people like yourself and Hu an apology for having to witness me expressing my frustration. I'll try to restrain it in the future.-Psychohistorian 01:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You appear get very frustrated with every article you edit; perhaps it is a problem on your part? There doesn't seem to be any reason for an intelligent and well-educated person to become so consistently frustrated to the point of anger in so many different articles. You are mistaken that imprecise measurements are accurate, of course, and appear to fundamentally misunderstand the link between precision and accuracy. And you can equivocate and backtrack all you like, but you have misspoken several times on this matter of the meaning of "science" and "the scientific method", are inconsistent in your usage of words, and have not been able to offer reasoned arguments in this dispute. Your (incomplete) (non-)credentials do not lend any logic or credibility to your arguments, nor does the time wasted on insults and bickering bring you any closer to providing the citations of texts which you must've had in your possession (if not still) for the coursework you are so fond of mentioning. Your idea of a citation appears to be dropping the name of a book rather than clearly showing what it says, so I don't have much hope for better citations from you in the future. Fourdee 01:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me address each of the points you just made. 1.) I didn't say that imprecise measurements are accurate. However, they can be accurate. To understand the difference between accuracy and precision, an example that I've seen in freshman level science classes (and that you might see when you take a freshman level science class) is the example of a dart board. If a number of darts appear widely spread on the dart board, but, when taking their average location, you find that they center around the bullseye, that's high accuracy, but low precision. If darts are highly clustered but center around the edge of the board, that's high precision, but low accuracy. So, imprecise measurements can be (that's -can be-, not -are-) accurate and inaccurate measurements can be (again, -can be-, not -are) precise. Again, you'll learn this when you take a freshman level science class. 2.) Where you have claimed that I have "misspoke" about science and the scientific method is where I have supported my position with the article I linked to by the ISSS - which a third editor has confirmed does support what I wrote. 3.) You have at no time pointed out an example of me being inconsistent. That's a spurious claim. So is your claim that I've not provided reasoned argument where needed/appropriate. 4.) Yes, I have mentioned several books and will continue to do so because I desire that the editors working on a Wikipedia article are actually educated on the subject that they are editing - a desire which appears, in your case, will go unmet. Having said that, I intend for it to be the last time I will focus on anything other than how to write a better article. That means that you can take the last word if you want it.-Psychohistorian 02:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice you don't address the fact that you have this persistent problem with getting frustrated and insulting people. 1) I assure you that were one to take a freshman level science class (geez maybe I can some day... not sure if they offer that at Hamburger University though. personal attack noted and added to your tab.) one might expect to actually learn a fundamental truth - no single measurement is ever accurate if it is imprecise. Groups of measurements can be considered accurate but imprecise. However in the example in question I used the term "accurate" once, and correctly, to mean adherence to the true value (by a single observation no less), and aside from that used the terms "more true" and "less true". A single more precise, accurate observation is "more true" than a less precise observation, and is in fact more accurate. 2) and 3) You claim that systems science is not science then cite a website which describes systems methodology in its very title as science. That's inconsistent and illogical on the face of it. Specifically you said "Fourdee, you want to know how systems methodology is not like the scientific method. To put it in one word, 'laboratory'. Science presumes that things can be taken apart[...]" It is not possible for you to rationally cite a source which describes systems methology as properly labeled "science" to support your claim that it is not "science" - hence your irrational argument and equivocation. 4) Mentioning a book is not a citation. You seem to be unwilling to provide a clear, specific citation of anything. Thank you for the last word, and I would very much appreciate it if you focused on citing the article henceforth, and I'm sure the editors of the other articles you abuse would appreciate it as well. Fourdee 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I share your frustration, for the reasons you cite, Psychohistorian. The basic requirements for editing are intelligence, cooperation, and reasonableness. Education helps a great deal because it saves other editors having to educate an editor, but it is not essential compared to the three requirements. It is not necessary to have a Ph.D., or advanced degree or any degree, to edit intelligently, cooperatively and reasonably. If any of the three are missing, then there is trouble and if two or all three are missing, then trouble can be severe. I have tried from time to time to bring the discussion back to discussing practical consequences for the article. (Nobody fiddle with the indentation of this remark, it is intentionally set the way it is, since it is a reply to Ph., please) Hu 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So, for the First Sentence, what are the practical consequences of this little debate on "systems science" versus "science"? Hu 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends whether it uses either term. Seems easier just to quote or very closely paraphrase an expert definition, rather than trying to manufacture one now which we will never agree over. Fourdee 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Excessive indentation uses up valuable space on the left. When comments are placed in chronological order, it is not necessary to indent further. However, if an editor goes back to reply out of chronological order to a prior remark then incrementing the indentation is a good idea. Occasionally it makes sense to outdent to the margin to reset indentation. A conservative approach to indentation preserves the flow of the discussion. Hu 02:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As everyone agrees that the nonsense before does nothing to get the article improved, I have moved it, as the page was back to over 50k in length. Fourdee 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not strictly true, not all of what went before was nonsense.Talk:Emergence/Archive_3#A_Medium_Revamp Also, I note that you made a last remark and immediately archived the discussion. However, since Psychohistorian graciously agreed to not contest any last word you wanted to make on a thread there, it is perhaps just as well to archive it. Hu 02:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, we can always put more remarks on here :) Seems like there's plenty of space now! - JustinWick 05:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How about "There is no firm consensus on a precise definition of Emergence."? That seems to be the result of a lot of discussion here. I am still convinced that if the article is made whole and healthy, then the introduction will emerge naturally, and from that the first sentence will emerge. However, if I'm in the minority on that conviction, then it is reasonable to attempt the first sentence and I've given it my try. Hu 02:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How have we even established this much? How can we improve the article by adding more uncited statements? This is still a waste of time, whether or not I agree with what you are saying, because we are not working from content that will improve the verifiability of the article. Fourdee 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A sourced definition of "emergence" can be found here. It is, however, expressed mathematically and, if we use it, we'll need to translate it into language that common people can understand. It translates into what I already offered as a definition, but if someone wants to translate it in some other way, please present your alternative.-Psychohistorian 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That looks more like a proof of the plausibility of emergence than a definition, but it should prove useful for you in forming an introduction, and given your familiarity with this subject I don't think it would be untoward to suggest that you are the best qualified to do it. The article refers the reader elsewhere for the definition: "We will here use emergence in the general sense defined by Baas (1994a)." Sounds like Baas has what we are looking for. Fourdee 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise one that puts the article in context. Rather than being typically technical, it should be a concise, conceptually sound, characterization driven, encyclopedic definition. It should be as clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter allows. WP:GtWBA#TFS (Indented to same level as Ph's remark since it flows in chronological order.) Hu 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So, now that you (Fourdee) can't even agree to disagree, and you call working on the first sentence a waste of time and for you working on the article instead of working on the introduction is not an option, I think you have boxed yourself into a corner and I suggest you withdraw from the article entirely. (Note: the indentation of this remark is at the left since all three remarks are in chronological sequence. Please leave as is.) Hu 03:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fourdee: can you find a good, citable definition somewhere? Anyone else, can you? I think Fourdee has some perspectives on this that are correct, and I'm afraid the discussion would be a bit unbalanced was Fourdee to withdraw, but I think at some point, Fourdee, you are going to have to find some citations for this stuff as well. I think it is reasonable to cite the fact that Emergence has different meanings in different fields, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any definition. Man, this would be so much easier if we were like Nobel laurates and world-renowed philosophers. Who the heck came up with an encyclopedia based on random grad students and amateurs, heh. (I guess I count myself with the random grad students, even though I recently graduated that) - JustinWick 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I empathize with your desire, Justin, to understand things as well as a Nobel laureate, but I think it is actually a good thing that we aren't, because that level of understanding does not always correspond well with the ability or desire to communicate and teach. In other words, if we can communicate the subject well enough at our level, we can explain it to each other and to others who might be entering college or merely "well-read". Furthermore, the more experienced among us know how to work Wikipedia cooperatively to produce results that are greater than any one of us or any one expert could produce. We are well situated to be the bridge between the "experts" and the core demographic of Wikipedia readers. Hu 08:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

One theory about writing good Wikipedia articles holds that statements in the introduction should not be given citations or be studded with Wiki links, if two things are true about them, two things that would be true about a well written article anyway. 1) Every statement in the introduction should be expanded upon in depth in the article. 2) Those expansions should be properly provided with references. The theory goes that by keeping the introduction relatively free of Wiki links and citations and footnotes, it will be more readable and therefore more people will actually read it and then read the article. The introduction is not the foundation of the article, it is the storefront window that quickly shows people an overview and entices them into the article. The foundation of the article or the framework (pick your metaphor) is the structure of the section headings and sub-section headings, and then the key concept of each individual paragraph, which can be thought of as headerless sub-sub-sections. Get the organization of the concepts right and then it becomes easier to fill it out. This is part of my reasoning why it is better to write the article and then the introduction. Similarly, the size of the introduction depends on the size of the article. Note to skeptics: Despite scurrilous statements to the contrary (by one editor in particular), I am thoroughly in favor of citations and references in the body of the article. I also advocate not disrupting the article (by extension of Wikipedia) to make a point. Hu 09:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The current focus of work is Talk:Emergence/NewVersion. Hu 09:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have limited interest in doing the footwork for this article when my position is merely that the uncited statements should be removed. However a quick search yielded the following useful practical explanations of "emergence" from this paper (which also has a lot of citations of its own):

These citations have been archived to /References to save space here. Fourdee 07:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

These quotes offer the sort of supportable, carefully phrased, factually accurate, logically correct explanations of Emergence we should be using. It's not difficult or time-consuming to find this kind of citation. Fourdee 10:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

These are excellent quotes - defining Emergence under the guises of "classical" science. Now we just need quotes for all of the other definitions of emergence. Ph, got any for Systems Science? Is there a philosopher in the house? - JustinWick 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention that I especially like the second quote, it really hits the nail that is Weak Emergence on the head. The third quote is very cool, but should also be very, very obvious to anyone with training in physics. The first quote addresses only a small subset of Weak Emergence (in this case, it seems to be related to some branch of mechanics). - JustinWick 05:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move all the quotes so far collected to a subpage of Talk:Emergence so they can survive this page being archived - we could put a link to it at the top. I'll give it a shot and you can undo it if you don't agree. Fourdee 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable thing to do. Hu 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have put all the quotes I could find in the article and talk pages in /References and added a link to it in the archive box up top. Also added another quote to the strong vs. weak emergence section. The "not widely held in the physical sciences" bit could probably be removed from the section if it's unwelcome, it would be hard to find a citation for that. Fourdee 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed them from this page, if anyone objects (not sure if it was the right thing to do or not), feel free to revert. Fourdee 07:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like all the major problems were fixed, and people are in agreement about the outcome. Wish I had been able to help more, but I know little about this subject. Thanks to everyone for helping, questioning, and figuring out the truth of the matter. - JustinWick 05:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What is controversial about emergence? It's briefly mentioned in the opening of the article and not thoroughly addressed anywhere. 132.170.228.170 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read the various archives of the talk page, you'll see that "emergence" means different things to different people. There are strict scientific meanings, as well as mystical/philosphical meanings, and even things in between. Most of these are noteworthy and it is difficult for people to agree on the meaning and potential consequences of this term. This probably should be explained in the article, but since the big fight over it cooled off here, I think everyone is reluctant to add *more* contraversial material to the article. - JustinWick 18:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody rewrite the beginning? The quotes are unneccessarily confusing. Dreamer.redeemer 08:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The large number of links in this section is rather silly & not helpful for someone wanting to find genuinely related articles. For example, the link to Free will, which has little to do with emergence, and Rampancy, which is a ridiculous article. Perhaps someone else with more time & expertise than I could cut most of these. 84.70.195.69 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following pending discussion.

A simple way to unify all kinds of emergent phenomena is to understand them as having a common process of emerging, rather than similar features or consequences. The emergence of all recognized emergent properties appears to take place by processes that begin and end, displaying the growth (and decay) of the internalized networks of self-organizing processes that bring them about. Identifying the autonomous growth of systems is also a rich source for finding new new forms of emergence. The developing methods for doing this are efficient and seemingly testable and reliable. The hypothesis that growth and emergence are actually the same thing has not yet been fully discussed, but has potential.

This is hard to understand and seems WP:OR-ish. (Is there a simple way to understand emergence? is emergence about complexity?) 1Z 14:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The level of cites in this article is good, but there are still quite a few un-cited assertions.
Additionally, we should make the citation format uniform throughout the article. -- Writtenonsand 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the following on 5/6/07 in the lead paragraph: "The probable common mode of causation is the self-organization of internal loop networks, or 'systems', growing from imperceptible beginnings in the regions of gradients". Someone appropriately inserted "[citation needed]" The citations available are mostly to unpublished work, though the research has been quite successful. No one has been willing to discuss the very substantial additions to the scientific method required. What's needed to study emergence as a process is a way of closely examining individual events, which I now have published on the web at some length in the "physics of happening". I did go into the matter sufficiently to point the way in a paper for the Society for General Systems Research in 1984 conference, "Directed Opportunity, Directed Impetus: New tools for investigating autonomous causation" now republished as http://www.synapse9.com/DirOpp.pdf. Well it's missing most of the details, and the specific wording of the claim above, but the main substance is there. The fact is that the 'perfect formula' is the one you *look through*, not the one you *look at*. The basic reorientation of methods needed was done as part of a study of daily climate evolution in solar homes in the late 70's and the math and software done in the 90's. My best work is a piece on a fantastic little example of punctuated equilibrium for a plankton. If anyone has any idea of some journal that would be knowledgeable enough about evolving systems to consider it, I'd be delighted to finish up my latest (10th) version of the paper and submit it again.

Phil Henshaw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pfhenshaw (talk • contribs) 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

None of that adds up to notability. Please read the guidelines. 1Z 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This article appears to have a clear ideological bias; so it's not a mystery why the most important, fundamental framework of emergence -- marxist dialectical-materialism -- is wholly absent from it. However, since Wikipedia pretends to objectivity over the long-term, there's no way this issue can be avoided indefintely, simply because one party is generally always first off the mark with getting their POV "out there".

I mean, is there "thinktank" organizing behind this systematic Rightwing article-writing, or something..? Poor show, people. This is not true objectivity at work here.

Pazouzou 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Slimmed this section down some, and added an OR tag. It's mostly about "Emergent Concepts", which from a quick google is a term that seems to exist but not with the technical sense that the paragraph implies it has.

From what I can gather, this section posits an emergent concept as something like what Darwinism was in its first introduction, in the sense that at first Darwinism was greeted with widespread skepticism in the scientific community, but is now widely accepted in the same as one of the two pillars of Modern evolutionary synthesis.

Also, this section probably needs a new header, as it isn't really about fads or beliefs.--BlackAndy 01:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The main page provides an example of emergence in the WWW. Can anyone think/share examples of emergence in a large network of software systems? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.131.203.96 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is an example of the emergence of a global infrastructure which was unexpected. See history of Wikipedia --66.195.150.98 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The large-scale cooperation to be found in Wikipedia, on a global basis, far transcends any other project, based on Wikipedia:Five Pillars, to state the obvious. --66.195.150.98 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

I noticed this:

"In some theories of particle physics, even such basic structures as mass, space, and time are viewed as emergent phenomena, arising from more fundamental concepts such as the Higgs boson or strings."

However, strings do not create space and time. Space and time do not emerge from them -- they move in space and time. The strings still have a spacetime that they inhabit. mike4ty4 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See, for example, Lee Smolin's Three Roads to Quantum Gravity ; see chapter 10 for a theory of how spacetime emerges from loops and knots. --66.195.150.98 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"In some theories of particle physics, even such basic structures as mass, space, and time are viewed as emergent phenomena, arising from more fundamental concepts such as the Higgs boson or strings." - Given that String Theory is pretty speculative, non-predictive, and as far as I know entirely unfounded in any sort of empirical data (no one's ever seen a string, or a Higgs boson - they're purely theoretical constructs), I don't think this is a great example of emergence. Mass Space and Time are the basic structures, and higgs bosons etc are derived by mathematical reverse engineering from them (and to a large extent in spite of them - mass space and time don't seem to have nine dimensions). It isn't really plausible to say they "emerge" from the interaction of Higgs Bosons. ElectricRay (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This article defines emergence strictly as high-level complexity resulting from low-level simplicity. However, it is the inverse and somewhat counter-intuitive definition which really is the relevant concept to science (and philosophy). It is the emergence of comprehensible high-level simplicity from low-level complexity that defines emergence. We can comprehend some of the mechanisms of natural processes at a high level (for example, psychologic impulses which may underpin behavior) even though we could not possible derive such insights from a consideration of molecular processes which are the unimaginably complex fundamental building blocks of our brains. We can formulate fairly simple physical laws such as the gas laws which describe the behavior of gases without consideration of the quantum uncertainties which surround the individual sub-atomic particles which, after all, are the root structure of the gas molecules. This complexity leading to emergent simplicity is the key feature which allows us to comprehend the world at our scale, and the mechanism by which we can reach some understanding of physical processes when reductionism fails us. The whole can indeed be greater than the sum of its parts. The British physicist David Deutsch has a beautiful exposition of the subject in his book The Fabric of Reality. I think this article needs major revision to include these concepts.Cd195 (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

the two articles emergence and strong emergence should be merged

• The References Section is gummed up with everyone and his brother adding his recently published (or simply arXiv'd) "magisterial" paper on the subject. Perhaps there should be a separate section for older, dare I say, canonical or classical works on emergence such as Kant, Mill, and Lewes (and Anderson, which is often referenced in the literature). In any event, the arXiv references need to be segregated or removed; they are not peer reviewed and, alas, form an inferior class. JKeck (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"The concept have been used since Aristotle", says the text. Is this not just a typical confusion of general descriptions with terms? Terms require contexts and I would wager Aristotle had quite a different context than modern philosophy and systems theory. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think using the mobius strip in the mathematics section is misleading; a sphere can be built up in the same way and any subset of the triangles will be isomorphic a square, but not the whole; a torus can be built up cylinders so that no subset is connected and of genus 1; same goes for a circle, a triangle, etc. with line segments. Additionally, every prime can be written as a sum of composites so that no subsum is prime. And so on. At any rate, since their are an arbitrary number of predicates that can be applied to objects and decompositions of them, it is inevitable that one can make almost any mathematical object into an example of emergence; thus, I feel that the mobius strip is misleading since the average reader will see the mobius strip as more exotic than spheres and primes, and that this will cause them to think that there is greater depth to this concept than is true(at least, in so far as mathematics is concerned.) Phoenix1177 (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the fact that the world wide web obeys a power law doesn't seem remarkable since there is no such thing as randomness, it's bound to follow some form of laws. I think my problem here is that if the world wide web(or any of the other examples here) exhibited some other laws/structures, then this page would work just aswell by pointing out those different laws/structures. In other words, all your pointing out is that these complex objects obey laws of some form, and that these laws are sensible to humans; the later part is the only remarkable feature, but the page gives the impression asif it were otherwise. Phoenix1177 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep blathering on, I realize that in my second comment, above, I left out the part about no substructure having that property; nonetheless, we can always point something out about it that will satisfy this, unless we limit ourselves in what we can point out(which does not seem to be going on here.) For example, if we limit ourselves to topology and structures built up out of triangles, then we will not be able to find a distinction between two triangles joined into a square and a single triangle; however, we will be able to find such distinctions if we are allowed to talk about the number of sides when the complex is a polygon. I guess I would like to see more criticism of the topic, or have it pointed out that this phenomenon is nontrivial, in the vast majority of cases, only if we limit what properties we are allowed to refer to. 66.202.66.78 (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex J. Ryan, 2006. How is something (to be submitted) to the arXiv? The paper looked interesting enough for me to dig around and see if anyone else in the actual field had looked at it. 128.171.31.11 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The link to this paper is broken. -- Brinticus 06:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.247.12 (talk)

The following assertion is made in the Ceramic Engineering article:

"Self-assembly" is the most common term in use in the modern scientific community to describe the spontaneous aggregation of particles (atoms, molecules, colloids, micelles, etc.) without the influence of any external forces. Large groups of such particles are known to assemble themselves into thermodynamically stable, structurally well-defined arrays, quite reminiscent of one of the 7 crystal systems found in metallurgy and mineralogy (e.g. face-centered cubic, body-centered cubic, etc.).

I think this is a good non-living example of emergence at the molecular level in inorganic structures. I'm not incorporating any of this in the Emergence article today however as the sourcing was a bit unclear. When it is better sourced in that article, it might make a useful example for this one as well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not by anyone familiar with bangkok traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.55.202 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)