Cladistics is The Fundamental Conceptual Circularity

Searching for truth by conceptualization presumes that statements can be true, and they are true if they agree with reality.

Truth must, as such, be split between reality and our comprehension of reality. Of these, the truth in reality (i.e., the objective truth) is hidden in reality as the ambiguity of the objective approach, that is, that we can discuss every real phenomenon in at least two aspects, whereas the truth in our comprehension of reality (i.e., the subjective truth) is hidden in our minds as the contradiction between and within subjective approaches, that is, that subjective approaches are both externally and internally contradictory.

This split of truth is thus merely a property of conceptualization itself, and thereby also a property of the conceptual search for a truth itself. Such search simply leads to a choice between ambiguity (objectivity) and contradiction (subjectivity): truth being relative as an ambiguity in an objective approach and unreachable as a contradiction in a subjective approach.

The preferable choice of these two is ambiguity (i.e., objectivity) by that it agrees with facts in reality (fundamentally the fact that time is relative to space), because contradiction (subjectivity) instead is falsified by facts in reality (fundamentally the same fact). This choice does thus not find or decide the truth, but merely agrees with facts in reality. This is, as far as we know, the closest we can come to the truth. The choice leads to a search for the truth by comparing competing hypotheses about reality with reality, that is, empirical science.

The above reasoning is a concentrated version of the foundation for empirical science. Cladistics is the opposite to empirical science. It agrees about the presumption that only statements can be true (except the cladist Mikael Härlin, as far as I know), but it claims that there is no split between reality and our comprehension of reality. On the contrary, it claims that the truth (i.e., The True Tree of Life) resides in a fusion of the two. It thus claims that there is an objective subjectivity, or subjective objectivity, to be found (at the same time explicitly denying the opposite, that is, the foundation for empirical science).

This cladistic claim is tricky to counter. The first problem is what the claim actually means? Does it claim that reality is the same as our comprehension of reality is, or that reality does not exist, or that our comprehension of reality is prior to reality? However, in practice, these three possibilities melts down into the simple claim of the choice of subjectivity instead of objectivity (that is, subjectivity instead of empirical science). It actually claims that subjectivity HAS TO BE preferred because IT CAN find The Truth (i.e., The True Tree of Life), and thus that subjectivity is not contradictory, DENYING the opposite, that is, the truth itself.

Now, if this claim should be true, then time thus would not be relative to space, which it obviously is.The claim is thus OBVIOUSLY contradictory to facts, that is, falsified by facts, that is, wrong. Truth is thus, instead, that subjectivity is contradictory, in spite of cladistics' claim of the opposite. The claim can't change the fact that the preferable choice is objectivity (which cladistics denies). Objectivity remains the preferable choice although it is denied by cladistics.

Cladistics is simply subjectivity that on a generic level claims that subjectivity on a specific level is correct. It is an orthogonal paranoia that leaves reality as a magic dragon by the claim that it itself is correct independently of what it says and of reality. It is THE bolt (spin-off) of subjectivity when it finds its way back to nothing in conceptualization. Cladists believe they can find the Truth (i.e., The True Tree of Life) by confirmation of their preconceived ideas, although this belief is a definitional contradiction .Cladistics is The Fundamental Conceptual Circularity, and its idea of a Single True Tree of Life is a hallucination in this circularity. The Single True Tree of Life cladists hallucinate is, in practice, their own subjectivity. It is classificatory monoteism, that is, typology.

On the paranoic idea that is called "cladistics"

Cladistics is actually a direct circular confirmation of one's own classification of biological organisms into species, and classification of species into classes of species, by repeating the classification backwards. It ends with whatever one assumes at the beginning.

The cladistic idea that this paranoic procedure can end in a single True Tree of Life is just as impossible as that subjectivity would equal objectivity. If this would have been possible, then there would have been no difference between subjectivity and objectivity, and thus no difference between right and wrong. It would actually have meant that everything is true, like what Kuhn appears to be saying. If this would have been true, then Kuhn and cladistics would have been both right and wrong at the same time. Luckily, both Kuhn and cladistics are ONLY wrong. Their error resides in that they equal difference with similarity, when difference is real whereas similarity is abstract, and thus that ONLY difference is real. Subjectivity thus can't equal objectivity, because subjectivity acknowledges similarity, which is artificial, whereas objectivity acknowledges difference, which is real.

The cladistic axiom that subjectivity can equal objectivity (i.e., that there is a single Tree of Life to be found) is thus ONLY wrong. This idea is actually a direct circular confirmation of one's own classification of biological organisms into species, and classification of species into classes of species, by repeating the classification backwards. The axiom is actually a paranoic (i.e., circular) typological reasoning in tself, and wrong. 

The problem with oversimplifications like Cladistics

The problem with oversimplifications like Cladistics is that they have several equally correct solutions between which they are contradictory, because oversimplification in itself is actually leaving objectivity in preference for subjectivity, and subjectivity is contradictory per definition. Oversimplification is both the act of leaving objectivity in preference for subjectivity and subjectivity itself, like how Fourier transformation is both a transformation and a transform. Independently of objectivity and subjectivity, fact is that there are at least two aspects of every real phenomenon in an objective sense, and that these aspects are contradictory "solutions" of this phenomenon in a subjective sense. Objectivity and subjectivity are merely two orthogonal approaches to reality, objectivity being ambiguous and subjectivity being contradictory.

What Hennig actually does when he confuses object with class is thus that he leaves ambiguous objectivity in preference for contradictory subjectivity. Instead of acknowledging reality's fundamentally ambiguous nature, he claims that reality (i.e., the historical "reality") is unambiguous, thereby instead being contradictory. He thus returns to the same subjectivity that dominated biological systematics before Linné invented his objective (orthogonal) classificatory system, although dressed in new clothes. Its subjectivity is easily recognized by the Golden Rule of Biological systematics: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it is a duck.
 

On the choice between the Linnean system of classification and Cladistic classification in Biological systematics

The difference between the Linnean system of classification (like Evolutionary taxonomy) and Cladistic classification in Biological systematics is actually fairly simple to understand. It resides in that classification as an orthogonal system, i.e., wherein each class consists of two orthogonal classes, has two logically consistent, but orthogonal lines of reasonings starting from either the bottom level (i.e., objects, therefore called Objectivity) or one level up (i.e., classes of objects, therefore called Subjectivity). Objectivity is ambiguous with respect to the classified (i.e., objects) and ends in a paradox (in this case called Russell’s paradox), whereas Subjectivity is consistently contradictory (i.e., with respect to both objects, classes and facts, and between assumption and deduction) and likewise ends in a paradox (here called the class clade). The two end points for the two lines of reasoning are actually one and the same point, namely the opposite to their orthogonal starting point, arriving to it from their respective orthogonal line of reasoning.

The problem for us to understand this difference is due to that an orthogonal system also is orthogonally 2-dimensional, that is, an orthogonal series (or orthogonal stack) of 2-dimensional planes, which is infinite. Such orthogonally nested dimensional structure can be simplified into a single 2-dimensional system in two different ways, which are consistent with each of the two orthogonal lines of reasoning respectively: orthogonally as in the Linnean system, which is consistent with Objectivity, and "flat" as in Cladistic classification, which is consistent with Subjectivity.

It means that the choice between the Linnean system of classification and Cladistic classification actually is a choice between being ambiguous with respect to objects (i.e., the Linnean system of classification) or being contradictory with respect to both objects, classes and facts, and between assumption and deduction (i.e., Cladistic classification). In this light, the choice between the Linnean system of classification and Cladistic classification appears fairly given.

Cladistic classification is different from a simple "flat" classification only in applying a consistently contradictory classification of classes. Its reference for this kind of classification to be "natural" is nothing but an appeal to the subjectivity in us all. Unfortunately, subjectivity in this version only leads to the Wonderland (i.e., where everything is up-side-down). Also unfortunately, cladists can’t understand this fact because they presume that classes are real.

I'm home on Google - discussing cladistics as a special case of fanatism

Now, I'm home at Google blogspot. Google really understands the problems in painting reality. It understands that reality can't be painted unambiguously in present, and thus much less so in past. It would never even consider falling into the double ambiguity, that is, contradiction, cladistics has fallen into. It may fail to realize that this contradiction actually is Russell's paradox seen from the subjective side, but it would definitely not fall into it.

So, in this blog I plan to develop my, which I think is extremely interesting, dissection of cladistics. For me, cladistics was a shock when I first encountered it - a totally stupid (i.e., simple-minded erroneous) simplification which for me appeared more like a joke than a serious approach - but I have gradually attained understanding of the underlying approach (i.e., realism) and the motives in this approach for this totally stupid (i.e., simpleminded erroneous) simplification. When I first questioned the consistency of the approach among cladists, I was surprised by that my points didn't seem to penetrate into their minds. It was just as if they couldn't see them just because they didn't want to see them. They refused to acknowledge them even when I put them in front of their eyes excluding all alternatives. They obviously had a blind spot for their inconsistencies in their belief. They couldn't even see how their own assumptions consistently contradict the conclusions they derive from them. They obviously had no sense what-so-ever for overall consistency (i.e., that everything have to fit together).

I realized that this issue in a larger perspective is a discusion about fanatism. Cladists are neither interested in finding out how reality works in a generic sense nor of how we can reconstruct history, but just of how history is best reconstructed in their perspective. They have lost (or have never had?) openness for different generic approaches in describing reality, but instead claim that they have The Correct Approach (denying all others). And, they simply presume that there is a Single True Approach in describing reality and it is, of course, their approach. And, their approach is that there is A Single True Description of the history of biological organisms to be found, although there are loads of both considerations and facts that contradict this approach, because, in their own terminology, it is "the most parsimonious" approach. They thus prefer an inconsistent and erroneous approach because it is "the most parsimonious", in practice meaning pure subjectivity. They thus seriously claim that pure subjectivity should be preferred because it is "the most parsimonious" approach. It indeed, is, but is this really a sensible reason to prefer contradiction? Or to start chasing the rainbow? Doesn't it matter that the approach is both consistently inconsistent and empirically erroneous?

The fanatism of the cladistic approach resides in that it is only open specifically, that is, within the boundaries of the approach (thus, pure subjectivity). It explicitly denies all other approaches (among them, specifically the scientific approach "objectivity"). It thus denies the fact that there are several ways to look at one and the same thing. This is the hall mark of fanatism. The problem for those outside of a fanatism is how they shall handle fanatics (like cladists). Amos Oz recently discussed this issue. Unfortunately, neither he nor anyone else has found a solution to this problem. Their consistent refusal to acknowledge anything else than one own's subjective opinion, or in the case of cladistics, subjectivity in general, is difficult to handle. Such conviction does not yield to anything, because for the convinced, there simply are no alternatives.                      

On the relativity of evolutionary entities

Hennig's dichotomous distinction of properties into apo- and plesiomorphies is inconsistent. Properties simply can''t be consistently partitioned into these two classes, because if they could, then they would not be ambiguous between these classes, which they are. This ambiguity actually shows that the classes are inconsistent, thus telling us that there is no non-contradictory solution to be found. A chase for a consistent solution is thus vain. Never can it be found.

The truth is instead that classes are relative by being orthogonal. It means that classes simply can't be arranged consistently and unambiguously, but only either consistently contradictory (in a non-orthogonal system like cladistics) or consistently and ambiguously (in an orthogonal system like the Linnean systematics).

It means that evolutionary entities (including biological species if they are evolutionary entities) have to be ambiguous to the extent that they can be said to exist, because they are both intermediate and overlapping the single objects over time. This property, i.e., being both intermediate and overlapping at the same time, is actually the definition of relativity.   

Conceptualization and cladistics

Our discussion about reality is limited by what conceptualization can accomplish. A fundamental limitation is that conceptualization can't be both consistent and unambiguous with regard to both class (concepts, or kinds) and quantity at the same time, but that consistency in class is ambiguus between different consistencies and makes quantity contradictory between infinite and finite, whereas consistency in quantity (i.e., in finite and infinite) is ambiguous with regard to class (i.e., there are several different, consistent solutions). The reason for this limitation is that the relation between class and quantity is orthogonal (i.e., diametrically opposed).

This fact does not impress on cladists, since they comprehend the situation as that every dichotomously branching process instead can (self-evidently) be partitioned into clades. The problem with this comprehension does, however, reside in that it comprehends a dichotomously branching process as a class (a concept, or a kind), because this comprehension is doubly ambiguous - both in time and over time - thus being contradictory between the concept and the conceptualized. It means that although every dichotomously branching process can be partitioned into clades, not any dichotomously branching process can be consistently and unambiguously partitioned into clades, that is, no dichotomously branching process can be non-contradictory partitioned into clades.

The question for cladists is whether this means that True Clades can be found or not. The answer is no. Such "things" cannot be found. They are actually nothing but brain-ghosts. The problem with them is that history is not frozen, but continues in this day. And, history is not superior to present, but present is instead superior to history. The only thing we know for sure is that single objects exist now. Everything else are either ambiguous or contradictory brain-ghosts. The idea of "True Clades" is a contradictory brain-ghost. This kind of thing simply can't be found consistently and unambiguously, because classes that extends over time can't be found consistently and unambiguously.

On the history of biological systematics

Biological systematics started off with the ancient Greek Parmenides claiming that reality is frozen. All change we percieve only occur in our own minds. Classes are thus nailed once and for all. All single objects are born into their respective class without possibility to escape it. An elephant is an elephant and a printer is a printer from the beginning and forever. This approach is called "realism".

Biological systematics continued with Heracleitos claiming that it is the other way around, that is, that reality is continously changing. That a single entity just appears to be the same over time like the flame on a candle appears to be the same, although it is continously changing. This approach is called "nominalism".

Aristotle united these two orthogonal (i.e., diametrically opposed) approaches into a system of specifics, generics and specific differences. The system united the contradiction of realism with the relativism of nominalism into a conceptual tool that can be used consistently to discuss reality. He thus invented the notion of a genus with its species. The problem that remained was how to combine genera consistently into something else.

This problem was solved by Linné by his orthogonal classificatory system uniting classes hierarchically by intervening categories (like species, genera, families, classes, etcetera).

When Linné had solved this problem, it took about 300 years until a biological systematist (i.e., the German entomologist Willi Hennig) found the way back through these conceptual developments again raising Parmenides´claim that reality is frozen and thus that classes are nailed once and for all. Hennig thus confused everything to the degree that it is difficult to get out of the confusion. The question is what the question is for Hennig's answer. Clear is, however, that Hennig's answer is wrong, independently of what the question is, because it is contradictory, just as contradictory as it was about 2,500 years ago.

Biological systematics thus appears to rotate in an eternal orthogonal carousel searching for a reality that fits its classification. Biological systematists do not appear to be interested in understanding of reality, but just in an unambiguous classification of it that can't be reached. The question is if biological systematics will ever acknowledge the fact that it can't be unambiguous (per definition).