On true and false

We (humans) agree about that descriptions of reality can be either true or false. The number of true descriptions is, however, not one, but several. The reason is that there are several different consistent classifications of reality. Reality can simply be described in several different but just as true ways, because there are several different consistent classifications of it.

This fact means that there isn't any single true description of reality, like the idea (today called "cladistic") of a single "true tree of Life", or of Higg's boson. The problem with this idea is that the fact that all true descriptions are ambiguous in relation to each other means that any single of them is internally paradoxically contradictory, which also Bertrand Russell demonstrated with his paradox, since paradoxically contradictory is the only thing they can be when they can't be a single truth. Paradoxical contradiction is namely the opposite to a single truth. Everything "is" something both in relation to other things of its own kind and in relation to things of other kinds, ie, also truths, meaning that the truths are ambiguous in relation to other truths but paradoxically contradictory in relation to the idea of a single truth.The (theoretical) idea of a single truth is thus (practically) paradoxically contradictory.

It means that a search for a single truth (like cladistics (or Higg's boson-ism) is vain. This kind of search can only arrive to different paradoxical contradictions. It is actually an eternal merry-go-round between different paradoxical contradictions. The problem with this fact is, however, that it can only be understood theoretically. It can't be revealed practically by empirical experiments. There is thus no way to understand that it is impossible to find a single true description of reality by searching for a single true description of reality, but only by considering what we mean with our idea of "true" and "false".

The traditional idea of "true" and "false" is logical. That is, a statement is true if it can be logically derived from some premises, which, in turn, shall be self-evident. This definition is, however, ambiguous, since we can base the premises on either objects and classes or just classes, corresponding to the fundamental assumptions (ie, axioms) that objects or classes, respectively, are real. The problem with this idea of "true" and "false" is thus that it penetrates below the level of whether descriptions of reality are "true" and "false", thereby implying that "true" and "false" is a matter of axioms instead of descriptions of reality (ie, enter the eternal merry-go-round between different paradoxical contradictions). If we instead understand "true" and "false" as a matter of descriptions of reality, then we can understand that it is not about singularities, but about classes, and that there thus are several "truths".

We may not like the fact that there are several truths, but given the fact that the alternative is that truth is paradoxically contradictory, we ought to prefer to acknowledge this fact (given that the opposite isn't more rewarding). The problem with cladistics is, however, that it is more rewarding than acknowledging this fact is. The rewarding is thus an incitement for cladistics. You're simply better off by accepting cladistics (and its inconsistencies) than to rightfully discard it.

We can thus not find a single true description of reality independently of whether we acknowledge that there isn't a single true description of reality or not. Not acknowledging this fact is more rewarding and leading into race biology, whereas acknowledging it less rewarding and leading into Linnean systematics. Only Linnean systematics does, however, acknowledge the fact that the number of true descriptions of reality is not one, but several. Only Linnean systematics does thus agree with facts.

Linnean systematics is thus the only classification we have that is both internally and externally consistent. Carl von Linné was thus just as ingenious as Albert Einstein was, if not more. In comparison to him, cladists are merely huligans.