The problem with cladistics is that it denies what it aims at

The basic idea of cladistics is that:

if you comprehend an entity (eg, yourself) yesterday as the ancestor of the same entity today, then the ancestor and the entity today can be said to form a group, which cladistics calls a "natural group", or a "clade". Cladistics ONLY acknowledges such groups.

As a corollary, cladistics does not acknowledge niether single entities nor categories.

The fundamental problem with this idea is that:

the facts that "clade" in practice is a category (ie, as the set of clades), and that cladistics denies all categories, mean that cladistics can't find a consistent set of "clades" (ie, a consistent category of clades) simply because it actually denies it (by denying categories).

The fundamental problem with cladistics is thus that it denies what it aims at (or aims at something it denies).

Isn't it a brilliant spin? (A pseudo-scientific approach that can't find a consistent solution per definition. Guaranteed life-long support and career in the academy).