Ceci, n'est pas une phylogénie

Inspired by Magritte's example, I would like to present the problem with the class clade in phylogenetic systematics as: 

Ceci, n'est pas une phylogénie.

Compare:

The statements accompanying the illustrations appear contradictory (to some of us), but, try to smoke the pipe...

What the contrast between the illustrations and the statements actually does, is that it reveals a confusion of the abstract with reality that some of us are prone to. This is, perhaps less obvious in the upper example than in the lower, because most of us can understand the difference between a pipe and an illustration of a pipe.

So, what is the difference between a phylogeny and illustrations of this phylogeny? Well, the difference is that a phylogeny is unambiguous, whereas illustrations of this phylogeny are contradictory. This difference means that the phylogeny is indecisive between itself and its contradictory illustrations. We simply can't distinguish between the phylogeny itself and its contradictory illustrations. 

This difference means that we practically have to choose between chasing a non-existing True Illustration of The True Phylogeny or accept The Set of Illustrations that contradictory illustrate The True Phylogeny. The option of finding The True Illustration of The True Phylogeny simlply is not given.

Cladistics "denies" this fact and instead "claims" that it is the other way around, that is, that the phylogeny is a phylogeny, and thus that the pipe is a pipe. This "denial" and "claim" do not, of course, turn the phylogeny into a phylogeny nor the pipe into a pipe, but just claims the confusion the illustrations reveals. It simply boldly denies the difference between the abstract and reality that the illustrations reveal.

Cladistics thus "claims" that the abstract equals reality, and "denies" any difference between them. Unfortunately, this "claim" and "denial" is contradictory, actually the contradiction that is called Russell's paradox, and thus wrong per definition.The claim and denial are actually a conceptual confusion  which cladists "claim" instead of acknowledging that it is a conceptual confusion. Cladistics thus can't be objected to per definition, since the objections are the facts that cladistics "deny". Cladistics is thus an orthogonal circularity (i.e. a paranoia) which can't be objected to, since all objections are denied by cladistics. Cladistics is thus a sect by all definitions of a "sect".     

On the problem with the concepts monophyletic group and clade

The problem with the concept monophyletic group is that it is ambiguous between specifics (i.e., in time) and generics (i.e., over time) - whereof the concept specific monophyletic group is synonymous with what cladists call paraphyletic group, and generic monophyletic group is synonymous with holophyletic group. This conceptual ambiguity means that specific and generic monophyletic groups can't be practically distinguished unambiguously, because an ambiguity can't be distinguished unambiguously.

The problem with the concept clade is that it confuses the concept monophyletic group with holophyletic group, and thus also generic with specific. It means that clades can't be practically distinguished without contradiction, because generic is orthogonal (i.e., diametrically opposed) to specific.

Unambiguous "natural groups" is an impossibility

Biological systematists have been searching for unambiguous so-called "natural groups" since the dawn of Man. Today, scientific discoveries have, however, paved the way for an understanding that unambiguous (i.e., neither ambiguous nor contradictory) such "natural groups" is a both theoretical and practical impossibility.

The fundamental problem is that a logical discussion about finite classes, that is, set theory, ends in contradiction (i.e., Russell's paradox) in the objective perspective, because it means that the opposite, that is, the subjective perspective, also ends in contradiction (concerning which class a particular object belongs to). Russell's paradox simply reveals that the opposite to the concept object, that is, the concept finite class is fundamentally contradictory, a contradiction that can be changed into an ambiguity if we classify classes in categories, but which can never be turned into an unambiguity. A fusion (i.e., equalization) of the concept classification with the concept class is simply contradictory, but the concepts can be consistently, although ambiguously, kept apart using the concept category.

The discovery of Russell's paradox thus revealed that the ancient idea of unambiguous so-called "natural groups" is a both theoretical and practical impossibility. The idea is actually just as impossible as objects are possible (i.e., given). Instead, the closest we can come (i.e., the best we can get) is ambiguous "natural groups" (like in the orthogonal Linnean system of classification). Such "natural groups" can't be unambiguous, but are at least not contradictory.

Cladistics claims “the contrary”

Biological systematics developed from about 350 BC to about 1700 AC in an objective scientific context from Aristotle’s first steps using generics, specifics and specific differences into Linné’s ingenious, orthogonal hierarchical classificatory system.

About 300 years later, the German entomologist Willi Hennig turned this 2000-year scientific development up-side-down and in-side-out into the purely subjective context of the pre-Aristotelian, ancient Greek Parmenides, which has since then (during the last 50 years) developed into the approach called “cladistics”. Cladistics has thus during the last 50 years diverted from an objective scientific context. At the same time as the Linnean system in science has developed into consistent object-oriented programming (OOP) in IT and also provided the foundation for consistent CAD (and thus CAM), cladistics in biological systematics has instead taken the orthogonal route "denying" the Linnean system and instead only "acknowledging" consistent contradiction. Cladistics has thus initiated an orthogonal battle against objective science (hitherto only in biological systematics).

The reason for cladistics' obviously insensible, orthogonal line of reasoning appears to be that cladists considers this route to be simpler (“more parsimonious”, as they express it) than consistent objectivity is, thereby obviously dismissing the consideration of sensibility. Cladists obviously don’t care about whether they contradict both facts and themselves consistently, as long as they are principally simple-minded. Instead, they are actually guided by simplemindedness itself (which they call “being parsimonious”). And, the most parsimonious you can be is, of course, to believe whatever you may believe (and "deny" other beliefs).

It means that cladistics claims “the contrary” (to both other beliefs, objective scientific thinking and itself). It actually claims contradiction itself. It is an eternal merry-go-round of orthogonal conceptual triangulation, wherein everthing is contradicted (because the approach is founded on contradiction). It does neither actually try to find something, but instead tries to get rid of the factual contradiction to it, that is, what it calls “paraphyletic groups”. It actually believes it can make one brain-ghost come true by getting rid of another brain-ghost. And, since it denies facts, nothing can stop it from trying (forever). It can actually run around its eternal merry-go-round driven by its claim of "the contrary" forever, because it is disconnected from sense.

If cladistics isn’t a historical record of misunderstanding and confusion, then Einstein is, and the reverse. One of them has to be. The fact that classification is orthogonal means that it is cladistics that is the historical record of misunderstanding and confusion. It actually believes that there is an objective subjectivity to be found, although a such can only be what one says it is, that is, a subjectivity.

The correct definition of "cladistics", per definition

The correct definition of cladistics is "the confusion of object with class, by confusion of the specific (in the form of holophyletic group) with the generic (in the form of monophyletic group", that is, "the confusion of empirical science (i.e., nominalism) with belief in classes (i.e., realism)". Or, put simpler, "generic subjectivity", or "objective subjectivity". It is the old idea that subjectivity can find a single objective solution by optimizing facts. It is the idea that truth can be revealed by simply optimizing the fit between "observations", in this case, classifications. This belief in a single true classification is so strong that it blinds the believers from the obvious fact that classification is orthogonal, i.e., that it lacks an unambiguous middle, and thus can't be unambiguous per definition, that is, can't be single. The believers fail to understand the fact that there can't be a single true classification to be found per definition, because they so strongly believe that there is a single true classification to be found. Their wish has turned their minds into belief instead of understanding to the degree that they deny an obvious definitional fact (actually contradict themselves definitionally). They choose definitional contradiction instead of definitional consistency to acknowledge their belief that classes are real. They voluntarily dive into contradiction, although it, in itself, proves them wrong, because they are so convinced (i.e., believe) that it can't be wrong (given that classes are real). They thus refuse to arrive to the consistent conclusion that classes are not real (that is, nominalism), because their whole reasoning rests on the axiom that classes are real. They thus refuse to acknowledge that they are simply wrong - totally wrong.       

The confused definition of cladistics you can find in Wikipedia is written by cladists, that is, of persons that confuse object with class. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to correct the definition in Wikipedia, because I have consistently been hindered to do so by cladists. When belief rules, then facts are surpressed.

A single Tree of Life is not to be found

Cladists are simply searching their own comprehensions of reality. The fact that they can't produce a single subjective classification forces them to argue in a generic sense that there is a single true classification to be found. This argumementation is, however, vain. Such thing is simply not to be found. If it had been, then Russell's paradox would have been wrong.

On biological systematics - its eternal rift between subjectivity and objectivity

Biological systematics is traditionally a battle between realists (i.e., subjectivists) and nominalists (i.e., objectivists), the former assuming as an axiom that classes are real, whereas the latter assuming as an axiom that objects are real, undulating back and forth between these entrances to reasoning. Realists created the mess in biological systematics before Linné, and Linné as a nominalist straightened out the mess. However, recently (around the 1950-ies), realists had gained new strength reappearing on the scene by the German entomologist Willi Hennig introducing a new kind of realist approach, called cladistics, which is best described as "consistent subjectivity".

Hennig's idea is basically that a consistent dichotomous confusion of classes will ultimately (i.e., by optimization of the number of included properties) lead to a single consistent classification, which is "True" with regard to the origin of classes (called "The Tree of Life"). The idea does thus not only rest on the axiom that classes are real, but also on the axiom that classes have originated in a dichotomous fashion, that is, opposite to the consistent confusion of them by which their True origin is found.

Much can be said about this idea. The first is that it is able to rotate around any classification, given that it finds the "True" origin of classes by confusion of any particular classification. This method is indeed paranoic, but not necessarily inconsistent, since its consistency is ultimately decided by whether there are several different possible classifications of the True origin of classes to be found or not, and thus ultimately of whether classes are real or not. If classes are real, and if they have originated according to the model, then this paranoic reconstruction of their origin is consistent, because it actually reconstructs their origin. The question whether this paranoic method is rational or not is thus transferred to whether classes are real or not.

This question, i.e., whether classes are real or not, can be answered only if it can be tested empirically. If it can't, then the two entrances to reasoning (i.e., subjectivity and objectivity) are indecisive, in which case cladistics is ultimately correct by the scientific parsimony criterion. The problem is thus to find facts that can decide between the two (orthogonal, i.e., diametrically opposed) approaches empirically. This search has only a single finding, namely the only fact that distinguishes reality from abstraction, that is, that time is relative to space. This fact namely falsifies subjectivity by that subjectivity equalizes space with time, thereby leaving no possibility for time to be relative to space, whereas objectivity leaves the relation between time and space open. This fact thus falsifies subjectivity in favor for objectivity. It thus reveals that subjectivity is inconsistent, and thereby that objectivity is consistent, and thus that cladistics is consistently inconsistent. This fact is thus, no matter how far-fetched it may appear, the decisive fact for the choice between subjectivity and objectivity, It actually falsifies subjectivity in a specific sense, and cladistics in a generic sense, by denying subjectivity's axiom that classes are real. It thus answers the question whether classes are real or not with a NO. Classes are not real.

Subjectivists (i.e., cladists) are thus merely a pain in the ass for biological systematics. Their approach is a paranoic, and this paranoia is falsified by empirical facts. Subjectivity can actually not find neither a specific nor a generic classification that is consistent and unambiguous, because consistent can't be consistently combined with unambiguous, no matter how much we wish it could have.
    

 

On Willi Hennig's fundamental conceptual triangulation from objectivity to subjectivity (called cladistics)

In the middle of the 1950-ies, the German entomologist Willi Hennig performed a conceptual triangulation (in the context of biological systematics) leading from an objective approach to subjective approach, accompanied by a claim that subjectivity can be objective (i.e., that there is a single True Tree of Life to be found). The triangulation slided on a confusion of monophyly with holophyly (later called clade), landing in a rejection of what Hennig called paraphyly, whereof clade terms every possible class of classes, whereas paraphyly terms single classes. Hennig's approach appeared sensible in that it appeared to acknowledge Darwin's "theory on the origin of species", but insensible in that a clade thus joins "entities" that the approach rejects (i.e., paraphyletic entities). The insensibility can be counterattacked by envisioning that paraphyletic entities actually are clades internally, but it does at the same time deny Hennig's rejection of paraphyly. Hennig's triangulation thus ended in an approach that appeared sensible by "acknowledging" Darwin's theory "on the origin of species", but insensible by rejecting itself.       

Hennig's conceptual triangulation was never accepted by any scientific journal, but instead published in a book. From there, it was, however, picked up by Steve Farris and Gareth Nelson, won supporters, and was then enforced on biological systematics by brute force. Protesters against its insensibility were either silenced by all possible means or simply ignored (like me). The insensible conceptual triangulation thus took the power in biological systematics by brute force alone.

The problem with Hennig's triangulation is that the fact that subjectivity can't be objective means that it merely confuses subjectivity with objectivity, which, joined by the claim that subjectivity can be objective, leads into the belief that if there are disagreements between subjectivity and reality (which there always are), then subjectivity can be more true than reality is. It thus leads into the belief that if there are disagreements between the map and reality, then the map is more true than reality is. One can thus be right even if facts contradict one's opinion. This belief can't be questioned, like no belief can, but its claim that it can be consistent and unambiguous can. Fact is that subjectivity can't be objective, which is evidenced by the approach's fundamental problem with paraphyly. This fact means that subjectivity not only can't be objective, but moreover can't be non-contradictory, but, instead, always are contradictory.

It means that Hennig's triangulation leads into consistent contradiction, as evidenced by the contradiction of its paraphyly. Luckily, no scientific journal accepted it.  

On the orthogonal merry-go-round called "Cladistics" - the meaning of its "clade" and "paraphyly"

Cladistics is the fundamental confusion of the generic with the specific, or of class with object, by confusion of the generic concept monophyly with its specific concept holophyly into the confusing concept clade. It means that the concept clade terms both classes and objects at the same time, whereas the opposed concept paraphyly terms neither classes nor objects at the same time. The concept clade thus terms everything, whereas the concept paraphyly terms nothing. In light of this understanding, it is not surprising that cladists strive so hard to get rid of paraphyletic groups - nothing is, of course, nothing, whereas everything is, just as of course, everything. The insoluble problem with this quest is to find everything without finding nothing.

This approach is what one falls into when one bites oneself in one's own tail by confusing class with object. Cladistics has thus given this orthogonal merry-go-round a name - that is, Cladistics. Cladistics is thus in practice "the vain search for a consistent and unambiguous classification of classification".