I think conversation reports are often not as reliable as one might think. I am linking to a blog which reports a conversation between the blogger, Jason Rosenhouse, and Angus Menuge, during the Kansas evolution hearings.
Rosenhouse: Bugged Menuge and reporters during lunch. Menuge conceded that I made some "good points" which means I'm a philosopher now. He hadn't thought about emergent properties, and claimed that they were irreducible. Which is wrong in a right way. Or vice versa.
I found that a little tough to believe, since philosophers always have to think about emergent properties. Menuge wrote back as follows:
What I did say is that merely appealing to "emergence" is hardly
explantory unless there is good reason to think that the properties
would emerge--the burden of proof is on the emergentist to show this,
otherwise appeal to emergence is no better than "and then the Fairy
Godmother waived her wand, and a carriage emerged." And even if
some important properties do emerge, that will simply push the
problem further back as to why they do--a universe finely-tuned so
that intentionality emerges hardly sounds like an undesigned one.
They were both there, is one of them lying? I doubt it.