Cladists think that the question whether objectivity or subjectivity is to be preferred in biological systematics is a matter of voting. They think that if the majority prefers objectivity, then objectivity should be preferred, whereas if the majority prefers subjectivity, then subjectivity should be preferred.
Not everything is, however, a matter of voting. Being consistent is one of the things that are not. A consistent approach can't be voted to be inconsistent, just as an inconsistent approach can't be voted to be consistent, and, whereas objectivity is consistent, subjectivity is inconsistent.
It means that voting for subjectivity is actually voting for inconsistency, and although also consistency has to be comprehended as incomprehensible by some, inconsistency IS incomprehensible per definition. Nothing can be comprehensible for everyone, but approaches can be both consistent and inconsistent, and subjectivity is inconsistent and thus also incomprehensible per definition. Voting for subjectivity is thus voting for incomprehensibility.
Cladists have thus missed the point that subjectivity is inconsistent. This fact means that only cladists (ie, subjectivists) can agree about subjectivity, but that they cannot agree about any specific subjective opinion, whereas everyone can (at least potentially) unify around a specific objective opinion. Agreement is thus within reach in the objective approach (since it is consistent), whereas it is not within reach in the subjective (since it is inconsistent).
These properties of objectivity and subjectivity respectively is not a matter of voting. Voting for objectivity or subjectivity is thus actually a matter of voting for or against consistency and inconsistency, and thus also for comprehensibility or incomprehensibility. Presently, biological systematists appear to vote for subjectivity, and thus for inconsistency and incomprehensibility.
How on earth shall biological systematics drag itself out of this hole?
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar