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.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar