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.