In her "Basics of Cladistic Analysis", Diana Lipscomb states that "If the evolutionary history, or phylogeny, of an organism is traced back, it connects through shared ancestors to lineages of other organisms".
This is actually the contradictory trap of cladistics itself. "The evolutionary history...of an organism...connects through shared ancestors to lineages of other organisms". What is it that Diana says connects to what? An organism (like Diana Lipscomb) does not have an "evolutionary history", but just a birth, and can thus not "connect through shared ancestors to lineages of other organisms". And, even if Diana had had an "evolutionary history", it is difficult to see how her history could "connect to" "lineages of other organisms", since it would mean that Diana's "evolutionary history" is a lineage. And, if Diana's "evolutionary history" indeed is a lineage, then it is the history of this lineage, not of Diana.
No, this statement is nothing but the cladistic dive into contradiction itself. Diana can't keep a single concept apart from other concepts, but instead confuses them all into a conceptual mess, a conceptual melt-down.
After having concluded the grandiose "[biological] systematics is no less than understanding the history of all life", Diana states that the "Systematic Process" (unclear whether she means the process to systematize biological organisms or a systematic process in a generic sense)" consists of five interdependent but distinct steps", whereof the first is:
"1. The taxa to be classified are chosen".
just as if the taxa "to be understood" can be chosen and classification equals understanding. This "step" is actually the fundamental problem for biological systematics: if the biological taxa "to be understood" can "be chosen", then understanding equals choice, and choice is subjective, that is, contradictory per definition. The problem is actually the impossible challenge to arrive to something without assuming something, that is, to just percieve the truth without prejudices.
However, the problem is worse than that. If we indeed can solve this imposible problem, then we will just arrive to a paradox, that is, Russell's paradox, meaning that every possible solution is paradoxically contradictory. It thus doesn't help if we can solve this impossible problem that cladistics claims to have solved, a solution is still void. A solution of this impossible problem is thus also lacking.
Diana thus does not only lead people into consistent contradiction, she also holds out the erroneous prospect that the truth lurks behind this contradiction. She is thus a public seducer.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar