Conceptualization (classification) is a tool that can only be ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory

Conceptualization (classification) is a tool that can only be ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory. It is ambiguous in relation to the classified if it rests on the axiom that objects are real (ie, objectivity), and it is internally paradoxically contradictory if it rests on the axiom that concepts (classes) are real (ie, subjectivity).

It means that we can't say something that isn't ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory, ie, unambiguous, at all. The question whether there is a single truth to be found or not does thus have the answer no, simply because it is impossible using the only tool we have.

The reason for this answer is, however, not the tool itself, but that unambiguity is an impossibility (ie, a void) in a changing world. There's nothing wrong with conceptualization (classification) itself; it just can't create the single truth we want. It is still a very useful tool if we use it consistently, that is, resting on the axiom that objects, not classes, are real. Using it resting on the axiom that concepts (classes) are real, like cladistics, is actually a misuse of it. Science is, as also cladistics indeed claim, a practice to optimize the fit between our models of reality and reality itself, but we have to remember that optimization always is second to reality itself, on the contrary to what cladistics claim. There is no reason to assume that reality itself is optimized. Instead, optimization must always be a matter of optimizing the fit between our models and the facts of reality, as traditional science does, not optimizing the models themselves, as cladistics does.

We must, however, abandon our paradoxically contradictory idea that there is a single truth, like The Tree of Life, to be found, and instead acknowledge the fact that there isn't. Understanding is superior to belief in painting reality, because it does in any case close up on the most accurate painting of reality. Painting reality is moreover not only a matter of black and white, but of Plato's three-folded division in his geometrical (or mathematical) atomism, wherein perfection is ultimately reduced to geometry (ie, to the world of ideas), which we today know is paradoxically contradictory (ie, Russell's paradox). However, this world is thus not a perfect reality of forms, as Plato claimed and cladists claim, since it is paradoxically contradictory, but instead a paradoxically contradictory mind construction which ultimately depends on the real, but changing, objects.

Conceptualization (classification) is thus a tool that can help us understand reality, but it can't produce a single truth. The belief that it can, ie, cladism, is indeed visionary, but wrong. It does thus not lead to a single truth, but only to a conceptual mess. If we want to keep thoughts clear, we have to abandon vision and accept facts, for example that conceptualization (classification) is a tool that can only be ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory. It is perhaps sad, but a fact. 

Cladistics is both contradictory and falsified by facts

The ancient Greeks quarreled about two orthogonal approaches to discussing reality, Heracleitus' and Parmanides' approaches, until Plato solved the contradictions both between and within them with his geometrical (or mathematical) atomism. This approach provided the foundation for the theories of modern physics, Linnean systematics and Object-Oriented Programming.

Recently, about 50 years ago, the German entomologist Willi Hennig challenged Plato's geometrical atomism by simply conflating Plato's "world of ides" with his "forms", claiming that they are equal. Hennig's claim transferred the approach in biological systematics from Plato's geometrical atomism back into Parmenides' approach, thereby denying the existence of change.

Now, if Hennig indeed is right, and if Plato's "world of ides" thus equals his "forms", then infinity equals finity and time is not relative to space. Then contradictions are thus real and facts are fiction. This kind of being right can actually not be falsified by anything, but is, instead, hard-core belief. It will search the treasure at the foot of the rainbow forever, independently of its goallessness.

Cladistics is the search for your own classification

The approach in biological systematics called "cladistics" is the search for your own classification, and since classification is paradoxically contradictory (see Russell's paradox), it is infinite (ie, an infinite recursion) per definition. Every specific solution contains paradoxical contradictions (ie, single entities that possess mutually exclusive properties) per definition.

Don't let cladists fool you into this eternal merry-go-round. 

On the war between nominalism (ie, Linnean systematists) and realism (ie, cladists) in biological systematics

Biological systematics is a battlefield for the eternal war between the two fundamental orthogonal approaches in conceptualization: (1) "objectivity" (ie, "nominalism") and (2) "subjectivity" (ie, "realism"), that is, between assuming as an axiom (1) that objects and (2) subjects (ie, classes) are real, respectively. The difference between them resides in that the former (1) understands that an unambiguous classification is an imposibility (by Russell's paradox), whereas the latter (2) not understands that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility (by not understanding Russell's paradox). Understanding of why an unambiguous classification is an impossibility is, however, extremely complicated, but at the most fundamental level, the reason is that reality is in a constant process of change and thus is impossible to nail.

In this war in biological systematics between objectivity and subjectivity, the approach called "cladistics" is an elevator (or bridge) from objectivity to subjectivity. It functions by first conflating object (ie, organisms) with class (ie, biological species), and then by treating groups of such classes as real entities (ie, objects), called "clades", although classes can't be objects, since they are orthogonal to them, and that classes thus can't be real entities (ie, objects). It thus creates an impression that classes indeed can be objects although they actually can't. By this, it not just conflates the concept object with the concept class, but moreover turns these concepts up-side-down, thereby creating a mess of all other concepts.

Cladistics is, however, not a new approach, but actually the same old realism that the ancient Greek Parmenides formulated about 2,500 years ago, although dressed in new clothes. The problems cladistics encounters are thus the same as Parmenides' approach encountered, which have been thoroughly discussed in the history of philosophy. However, the worst blow to this approach was delivered quite recently by Einstein's discovery (actually objective conclusion) that time is relative to space (which later was empirically verified), since realism claims that change is an impossibility (and thus an illusion), because an impossibility (illusion) can't contain factual differences (like the difference in the pace of time at different paces of time). An illusion can't contain factual differences. This discovery (actually objective conclusion) did thus actually falsify Parmenides realism and with it cladistics, thus before cladistics was born. Cladistics was thus falsified before it was born.

Cladistics is thus actually only a desperate attempt by realists to escape the fact that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility (ie, Russell's paradox). Before it emerged, some objective biological systematists had proposed that biological systematics should try to agree about a certain systematization of biological organisms (based on the Linnean systematics), but pre-cladists reacted aggressively against this proposal claiming that there indeed is a single true classification to be found (based on Willi Hennig's conflation of object with class). These pre-cladists thus simply refused to acknowledge the fact that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility. They moreover won supporters (ie, cladists) so that this fact (ie, that an unambiguous classification is an impossibility) is still not acknowledged in biological systematics.

If biological systematics could reach a consensus to acknowledge this fact, then it could make a difference in future for humanity. It actually could contribute to the development of thinking. But its refusal to acknowledge this fact instead turns itself into a mess, actually the worst possible mess. Which way it will go in the future is determined by its participants. Clear thinking participants lead it towards clearly formulated conclusions, while confused participants lead it towards confused conclusions, and confused conclusions are those conclusions that contradict facts.    

Cladistics is a fraud

Cladistics is a fraud. It does not have a consistent solution per definition. It is an infinite recursion per definition.

Can cladistics be more discarded than proven paradoxically contradictory and empirically wrong?

The German entomologist Willi Hennig conflated entities (ie, entity) with classes (ie, class) and did thereby enter consistent inconsistency. The conflation also conflates infinite classes (ie, class) with finite classes (ie, category), and thereby also entities (ie, entity) with finite classes (ie, category), and thus also singularities (ie, single) with groups (ie, group), It thus conflates everything that possibly can be conflated, leaving us with the paradoxical class (category?, entity?) that originally erroneously was called "monophyletic group", but which today is called clade.

This conflation led biological systematics into an irrational and insensible chase for "the True Clade", called "the True Tree of Life", which actually is a paradox called Russell's paradox. The conflation made some biological systematists (notably Steve Farris and Gareth Nelson) believe that this paradox actually can be found, instead of understanding that it is a paradox (although the paradox had been revealed logically about 50 years before Hennig's conceptual conflation).

Unfortunately, this conflation still holds the ideas of biological systematists in a firm grip. The notion of clades, which was abandonded by the introduction of the consistent Linnean systematics, does once again rule, as it did before the introduction of Linnean systematics. The paradoxically contradictory idea of a fusion of time and space is obviously difficult to get rid of, although it has been shown to be paradoxically contradictory by Bertrand Russell and also contradicts (ie, is falsified by) the fairly recently discovered fact that time is relative to space. This toughness of this insensible and irrational idea makes one wonder what it takes to discard it. Can it be more than proven paradoxically contradictory and empirically wrong?   

     

On classification and the cladistic idea of a "true tree of life"

1,a Classification of objects (ie, entities, like you, me, a cell and a mitochondrion) is ambiguous, because every object can be assigned to at least two classes of objects.

1.b Classification of classes of objects (like classes of biological organisms, eg, humans, cells and mitochondria) is contradictory, because every object of a class is contradictory between at least two classes of objects.

2,a Classification of classes of classes of objects (like Linnean genera) is ambiguous, because every class of class of objects can be assigned to at least two classes of classes of objects.

2.b Classification of classes of classes of classes of objects (like the different Linnean genera) is contradictory, because every class of class of class of objects is contradictory between at least two classes of classes of objects.

3a Classification of classes of classes of classes of classes of objects (like Linnean families) is ambiguous, because every class of class of class of objects can be assigned to at least two classes of classes of objects.

3.b Classification of classes of classes of classes of classes of objects (like the different Linnean genera) is contradictory, because every class of class of class of class of objects is contradictory between at least two classes of classes of classes of objects.

And so on ...

In this scheme, we can see that there are two principally different components of classification: objects and classes. We can also see that each of these components occurs at every second level of a classification into more inclusive classes (ie, objects in 1.a, 2.a and 3.a, and classes in 1.b, 2.b and 3.b), and that objects consistently are ambiguous between their classes, whereas classes consistently are contradictory between their classes, and that the classes of objects are the same as the classes of the classes (ie, 1.a and 1.b, 2.a and 2.b and 3.a and 3.b). This fact is just a consequence of the two facts that every object can be assigned to at least two classes, and that every class is contradictory between at least two classes, whereof "can be assigned to" ultimately equals "is contradictory between", because the relation between object and class is orthogonal. The relation between object and class is simply both ambiguous and contradictory at the same time.

The scheme thus paints the practical picture of the orthogonality of classification. This orthogonality means that classification itself neither can be "true" nor can contain the "truth", because it is fundamentally orthogonally circular. Its output totally depends on its input. There is a saying that "shit in", "shit out", but in this case it is rather "anything in", "the same thing out", but always contradictory. Every particular solution simply points at another solution. Consistency (ie, not pointing to another solution) can only be found using an orthogonal system of classification (like the Linnean systematics), consistently keeping objects and classes apart.

The question whether this means that there isn't a single true tree of life (to be found) has the answer that it depends on whether this hypothetical tree is orthogonally consistent or not. If it isn't, then there isn't, whereas if it is, then there is. If the classes that every object "can be assigned to" actually equals the classes that every object "is contradictory between", then there is indeed a true tree of life, but if thy don't, then there is not a true tree of life. The existence of a true tree of life does thus depend on the actual history of life: if the history of all included classes are congruent, then there is a true tree of life, but if they aren't, then there isn't. The probability that there isn't is, however, vastly larger than the probability that there is. A true tree of life actually requires a multiple of two entities, which have a totally symmetrical origin, and wherein all properties also are totally consistently distributed. The probability of such a tree is almost zero.

The probability that there is a single true tree of life is thus almost zero. Moreover, if there indeed should be one, then our fundamental partitioning of reality into objects and classes, and thus the foundation for this tree, should be wrong. If cladistics should be right, then all of us, including the cladists, thus should be wrong.

Cladistics is thus a huge problem for science. How do we get rid of it? How can we explain that it is impossible, ie, a vain serch to define the indefinable, as Darwin called it?

  

  

The contradiction of cladistics

Cladistics is the idea that we can acknowledge continuity instead of entities. The problem with this idea is that lineages are conflated. The end point of this acknowledgement is actually the same as acknowledging entities; the only difference being that the latter acknowledges both single and several, whereas the former only acknowledges several. This difference means that cladistics is contradictory between one and many, because one is, of course, true. . 

Om livets träd

En dikotom förgreningsprocess, såsom en asexuell cellinje (eller Darwins modell av evolution), går inte att klassificera konsekvent. Anledningen är att processen i sig själv då måste vara både en enhet (dvs ett objekt) och en klass, vilket i sig själv innebär att den är en paradox (Russell's paradox), vilken är inkonsekvent per definition. En sådan process går alltså inte att klassificera konsekvent därför att klassificeringen i så fall skulle vara inkonsekvent. Idén om en sådan klassificering, dvs kladistik, ger alltså ett ansikte åt begreppet omöjlighet. Kladistiken strävar efter att finna den omöjliga klassificeringen av process i sig själv.Denna strävan är alltså en oändlig rekursion, dvs oändlig loop, per definition. Varje möjlig lösning innehåller motsägelser som pekar på andra lösningar.

Detta faktum är svårt att förstå i sig självt, men speciellt när det gäller Darwins modell av evolution, eftersom den tycks förutsätta att omöjligheten är möjlig. Denna tolkning bygger dock på den felaktiga fördomen att Darwin med modellen hävdar att det finns ett enda sant livets träd, vilket han inte gör. Han hävdar endast att evolution kan beskrivas med ett träd. Det utesluter inte att evolution kan beskrivas lika korrekt med flera olika träd. Istället sliter han just med denna fråga i de 20 år det tar innan han (under stark press) publicerar sin teori. Både han och hans vapendragare (t ex Huxley) insåg att modellen kan missförstås, men åtminstone Huxley ansåg att detta problem fick man ta itu med senare. Den första prioriteten var att vinna över kreationisterna.

Tråkigt nog är det just denna möjlighet till missförstånd som Willi Hennig utnyttjade för att skapa kladismen (också kallad kladistiken). Detta gjorde han genom att särskilja den paradoxala klass som idag kallas "klader" och vilken egentligen är Russell's paradox (genom att peka på holofyletiska grupper och kalla dem för monofyletiska grupper). Genom detta öppnade han en möjlighet för fylogenetiken att attrahera trosinriktade personer, dvs att vara opportunistisk, men sänkte samtidigt dess vetenskapliga värde, eftersom denna öppning är lika inkonsekvent som, och på samma sätt som, kreationismen. Dvs, om Gud skapade världen, vem skapade då Gud? jämfört med: om om alla klasser har en enda ursprungsklass, vilken ursprungsklass har då denna klass? Dvs, var börjar klasser?

Istället borde fylogenetiken ha konfronterat det faktum att ett "livets träd" måste vara en approximation, dvs att det måste finnas flera lika korrekta approximationer, innan Hennig presenterade missförståndet. Den borde ha insett att Linnés system faktiskt samlar grupper av sådana lika korrekta approximationer under ett enda paraply. Den borde ha förstått att entydighet i denna fråga är omöjlig. Om den hade gjort det, så hade Hennigs missförstånd varit omöjligt. Emellertid, när den nu inte gjorde det, så står vi här med kladistiken, vilket gör problemet mycket svårare. I detta läge har vi endast två alternativ: att fortsätta kladistikens fåfänga försök att uppnå en omöjlighet (och samtidigt förvirra unga studenters sinnen) eller att förkasta kladistiken, vilket är mycket svårare än ens någon kladist kunnat föreställa sig. När vi väl har släppt ut vargarna så styr vi inte längre deras beteende. Det enda hållbara alternativet (dvs det senare) är alltså mycket svårare än ens någon kladist kunnat föreställa sig.

Hur detta drama kommer att utveckla sig är svårt att spå, men det faktum att dumheten oftast vinner över klokskapet bådar sannerligen inte gott för fylogenetiken. Kanske kommer Darwins teori att förkastas som en teorins villfarelse, dvs tron på Russell's paradox.

Why do cladists claim an impossibility?

I understand that the two facts that:

1. classification is ultimately contradictory (ie, Russell's paradox), and

2. cladistics believes in classification

means that cladistics is ultimately contradictory.

I'm just surprised that this fact has such a hard time to be acknowledged.

Why are there so few biological systematists out there willing to admit this fact? Why is this ancient belief in classification so hard to get rid of?

Is it because one third of all people assumes that classes are real, ie, are realists? If so, exactly what do they expect to gain by this resistance to acknowledge facts? Personal benefits?

Independently of cladists claim, fact is that classification (including "cladification") is paradoxically contradictory. It doesn't matter that all cladists agree about the approach, it is still inconsistent. Hundreds of billions of flies can't make eating shit tastefully, but can only lure people into eating shit. 

   

Cladistics tries to both distinguish and confound shared ancestry and apomorphy at the same time

On the talk page for Wikipedia's definition of the term cladistics, E O Wiley begins by stating that:

"As it stands, this article confounds "cladistic" and Linnaean classification. What is being contrasted is not "cladistics versus Linnaean" but "Phylocode versus Linnaean."

Wiley is a little careless with words, but he appears to mean that the definition of cladistics confounds cladistic [classification] and Linnean classification by contrasting [the] PhyloCode versus Linnean classification instead of "cladistics versus Linnean".

Apart from his inconsistent (realistic) method of defining by either contrasting or equalizing, instead of circumscribing, this statement boils down to the term Linnean in his expression "cladistics versus Linnean". Wiley obviously distinguishes cladistic classification (ie, PhyloCode) from cladistics, but what is his corresponding distinction of Linnean classification from Linnean? What does he mean with Linnean (if not Linnean classification)?

This question redirects to what Wiley means with cladistics (if not cladistic classification). He does not clarify this point further, but it is addressed in the first post on the talk page titled "Definition of cladistics" in the second comment by "The Braz":

"Cladistic classifications are not based on shared ancestry, rather inferences of shared ancestry are based on cladistic classifications. I don't think this [difference] is semantic, I think it matters because one [ie, the former] approach is purely circular and the other [ie, the latter] is not."

To The Braz, cladistics does thus obviously mean "inferences of shared ancestry", and he points at that it must succeed cladistic classification to avoid pure circularity.

However, we can also note that Wiley and The Braz disagree in their meanings of cladistic classification. Wiley appears to mean that cladistic classification equals the PhyloCode, whereas The Braz clearly states that it is "the grouping of things according to shared apomorphy (synapomorphy)". Wiley thus means that cladistic classification is by ancestry, whereas The Braz means that it is by apomorphy. However, the fact that cladistics axiomatically assumes that every clade also is distinguishable by an apomorphy, these two meanings of cladistic classification are actually perfectly synonymous under this axiom (ie, that ancestry corresponds to both clade and apomorphy). Under this axiom, none of shared ancestry and apomorphy is thus based on the other, as The Braz axiomatically assumes, but are instead the same things.

However, if shared ancestry and apomorphy indeed are the same things, as cladistics thus axiomatically assumes, then the confounding of cladistic classification and Linnean classification that Wiley points at in his introductory statement is actually a corollary to the cladistic axiomatic synonymization of ancestry and apomorphy, ie, if ancestry indeed corresponds to both clade and apomorphy, then cladistic classification also equals Linnean classification.

We can thus understand that the confounding of cladistic classification and Linnean classification in the article about cladistics that Wiley points at in his introductory statement actually is a corollary of cladistics' axiom that ancestry corresponds to both clade and apomorphy. That is, this axiom actually means that there is no difference between cladistic classification and Linnean classification. This fact explains both the inconsistency of cladistics (in its founding axiom) and the rationale for Linnean classification at the same time.

It isn't easy to both distinguish and confound shared ancestry and apomorphy at the same time, as cladistics tries to do, especially not when they actually are orthogonal. This fact is the rationale for the orthogonal Linnean classification.

Cladistics is what you end up in if you conflate (confound) pattern with process, ie, object with class, that is, Russell's paradox.

Idén om en otvetydig sanning (t ex kladistik) kan inte realiseras

Begreppsbildning är självmotsägande
Vår begreppsbildning av verkligheten är i grunden en klassificering av verkligheten. Problemet med detta är att klassificering är ultimat självmotsägande, vilket Bertrand Russell visade 1901 med det som senare kom att kallas Russell's paradox. Russell's paradox visar alltså att begreppsbildning är ultimat självmotsägande.

Anledningen till självmotsägelsen
Anledningen till denna ultimata självmotsägelse är att klassificering är inneboende ortogonal (dvs diametralt) självmotsägande genom att alla klasser innehåller andra klasser. Alla klasser är alltså både en och flera klasser samtidigt, vilket är självmotsägande.

Följdverkningar av självmotsägelsen
Denna begreppsbildningens inneboende självmotsägelsel har många följdverkningar, varav en är viktigare än alla andra. Den är att vi måste dela upp vår uppfattning av verkligheten i två aspekter: mönster och process, och sedan hålla dessa isär konsekvent, dvs för alltid, för att undvika att flytta över självmotsägelsen till våra egna resonemang om verkligheten. Om vi sammanblandar mönster och process (vilket kan ge intrycket av att vara "naturligt" för personer som inte förstår vetenskap), så likställer vi istället en motsägelse mellan ändliga klasser (dvs "kategorier") och oändliga klasser (dvs det vi vanligen endast kallar "klasser"), vilka är ortogonala, dvs diametralt motsatta, och således inte kan likställas, utan är motsägande per definition  Då flyttar vi således över begreppsbildningens självmotsägelse ifrån verkligheten till våra egna resonemang om den.

Denna följdverkning innebär att idén om en otvetydig sanning är en utopi, dvs en omöjlighet, fundamentalt beroende på att en otvetydig klassificering av verkligheten är en utopi. Det innebär, bland annat, att "partikelfysikernas" strävan att hitta "Higgs boson" är en utopi, och att paleontologernas strävan att hitta "Livets Träd" är en utopi. Istället är faktiskt Linnés klassificeringssystem ett exempel på den konsekventa kompromissen mellan mönster och process. De ortogonala storheterna "mönster" och "process" kan förenas endast med en kompromiss, och den konsekventa kompromissen är ett ortogonalt system, dvs klassificerande enskilda enheter (t ex organismer) i kategorier av klasser, vilket Linnés klassificeringssystem är ett exempel på. "Den otvetydiga sanningen" är ultimat endast en idé, likt Gud, som omöjligen kan realiseras, därför att den är självmotsägande.

Summa summarium
Slutsatsen av dessa förhållanden är att idén om en otvetydig sanning är klämd emellan verkligheten och vår uppfattning av verkligheten, där ingen plats finns. Istället kommer denna idé för alltid att vara klämd mellan "strukturalister" och "funktionalister" (vilka också har många andra benämningar, såsom "objektivister" och "subjektivister"), där segraren alltid kommer att vara kompromissen mellan dem, men således aldrig den otvetydiga sanningen. Ultimat måste vi alltså acceptera kompromissen och överge idén om den otvetydiga sanningen. Det kan kännas tungt för extremister som hävdar idén om den otvetydiga sanningen, såsom kladister, men är icke desto mindre den påtvingade verkligheten. Dröm kommer alltid att förbli dröm, och verklighet kommer alltid att förbli verklighet, och mötet mellan de två kommer alltid att förbli en kompromiss. Higgs boson kommer aldrig att hittas (om nu inte partikelfysikerna lyckas lura i oss att sannolikhet är lika med sanning), och "Livets Träd" kommer inte heller att hittas, därför att de är omöjliga per definition. Det är omöjligt att realisera en begreppsmässig motaägelse.     

Cladistics is the extremism of empirical science

Cladistics is the extremism of classification, ie, classificationism, or typology (resting on the same idea as racism, ie, that the biological diversity consists of definable collections of organisms, that is, sets. It does not realize that Russell's paradox actually falsifies this idea by demonstrating that the set of all sets that does not include themselves is paradoxically contradictory. Its corollary set of sets is thus falsified by Russell's paradox. 

On the basis of its erroneous idea, cladistics first allocates objects (ie, organisms) into classes, and then conflates the obtained classes back towards the singular objects it started with, asserting that there indeed is a single True Classification (ie, The Tree of Life) to be found at the end of this paranoic procedure.

There of course isn't. The procedure is nothing but a classificatory circularity that actually is an infinite recursion (infinite loop), since it can't return to the singular objects (ie, organisms) it started with. Instead, it will, of course, always end up with the same classes as it started with, but always contradictory.

Extremists are always contradictory, independently of what the extremism focuses on. It doesn't matter if they appear to be scientific by claiming that classes are real. Empirical science does not claim that classes are real, but merely classifies to be able to discuss reality in a generic sense. The idea that classes are real is not scientific, but actually a misunderstanding of science. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding leads into a racism that appears to be supported by science. For this, I, as a scientist, have to apologize. It was never my meaning to give the impression that the classes I distinguish are real. This weird off-shot of science is a no-go that neither I nor all other empirical scientists can take responsability for. There is always a possibility to misunderstand everything. Strict objectivity, ie, empirical science, can unfortunately not provide the simple truths that extremism can, but is, on the other hand, not paradoxically contradictory, as extremism is.

Cladistics is, however, an extremism that all empirical scientists ought to apologize for. It leads right into the racism that Willi Hennig was a child of.     

On the barrier between us and a single truth

The fundamental problem for classification is that it is paradoxically contradictory between in time (ie, class) and over time (ie, continuity), just like entity (object) displays two different aspects: pattern and process. It means that the two different aspects of entity (object) correspond to the paradoxical contradiction for classification. The two aspects and the paradoxical contradiction are thus actually two aspects of the same paradox, ie, an interface between them, which is called Russell's paradox.

This paradox is thus the core of classification. It is what we end up in when we search the truth in classification (like cladistics does). It is also the barrier between us and a single truth, because without a single non-contradictory classification we cannot, of course, find a single truth.

The idea of a single truth (ie, a single True Tree of Life, or single consistent system) will thus forever be hidden behind a fundamental paradoxical contradiction in classification. If this means that the idea is wrong depends on how we define "wrong". A more suitable word appears to be "impossible". A single True Tree of Life, or single consistent system, is simply impossible. It is, actually, an unreachable state between reality and our classification of it, which is consistently classified using an orthogonal system like the Linnean classification. Such system thus touches a single Truth, but, unfortunately, just as one aspect of it. The single Truth remains hidden behind the fundamental paradoxical contradiction in classification, called Russell's paradox.

Cladistics may claim that matters are the other way around, that is, that the idea of a single truth (ie, a single True Tree of Life, or single consistent system) is within reach, but it can't change the fact that it isn't. It can only lure people into a vain search for it. An unwanted understanding can be suppressed by an irrational wish, but can't be conjured away. In the long run, we must accept also unwanted facts, because striving for impossibilities is vain.