On the idea of a "true tree of life, and the problem with Cladistics for biological systeatics

The reason why there isn't any "true tree of life" is that classification is ultimately paradoxically contradictory, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated with Russell's paradox already in 1901.

This fact means that the question of a "true tree of life" is not a question about reality, ie, which the "true tree of life" is, but about modeling reality, ie, whether we can describe the history of organisms in terms of a consistent "true tree of life" or not, and the answer is thus "not".

The problem with Cladistics is thus that it misunderstands the question of a "true tree of life" fundamentally as a question about reality, when it actually is about modeling reality consistently, and that it thereby can't understand the answer that there isn't any "true tree of life", because it misunderstands this answer as an existential claim (assertion), when it actually is just a conclusion on our possibilities to model reality consistently. The answer merely concludes that there isn't any "true tree of life" because this model is paradoxically contradictory, since a paradoxical contradiction is not one, but many . (Cladists don't comprehend the notion of "trees of life" as a model of reality, but as a single reality, ie, The True Tree of Life).

This cladistic inability to understand the context means that Cladistics searches for something that can't be found, This search is, of course, their own business, but one question is why Swedish tax payers shall sponsor this vain search on Swedish universities? Why shall they sponsor a search for a pink elefant when their money can be used for many more sensible purposes? Another question is whether this inability to understand shall be allowed to be taught in Swedish universities at all? There may be students that do understand the context, and what will the "teachers" do with them? In such a case, the student actually ought to teach the teacher, but since cladists are not susceptible to anticladistic arguments, such intelligent students will thus be excluded from the universities. There are thus major problems with having cladists on universities. But, who can clear them out?

When will biological systematists understand what they do?

Biological systematics is the battlefield between nominalism and realism, and never will the two meet, because Russell's paradox stands between them. It started with realism (ie, Parmenides), passed into nominalism via Aristotle and Linné, and then returned to realism via Hennig. The natural continuation is to pass another lap in the same circle, shorter this time, before it commences yet another lap in the same circle, all the time trying to reach the carrot in front of the donkey's nose, ie, the true classification, or the "true tree of life".

When will biological systematists understand that what they look for is Russell's paradox? When will they understand what they do? 

On the fundamental battle in biological systematics between Linnean systematics (Evolutionary taxonomy) and cladistics

Biological systematics has been struggling with the issue whether kinds are real or not since the dawn of Man. The fundamental problem with this issue is that it confronts kinds and relationship groups (including single entities) concerning which of them that comes first (aka is real). This problem is actually insoluble, since kinds can't be real without single entities, and relationship groups can't be real without kinds. This fact means that kinds must be both real and not real at the same time, which, in turn, is explained by that reality has two aspects: pattern (ie, kinds) and process (ie, relationship groups) at the same time. None of them thus comes first, but both of them are, instead, simultaneous.

However, logical reasoning requires something that comes first, that is, a presumption, or axiom. It means that there are two diametrically opposite (ie, orthogonal) lines of logical reasonings, which thus are completely contradictory in not sharing a single common point. These are thus not contradictory in opinion, but in subject. They simply don't handle the same subject. Whereas one discusses kinds and derives relationship groups, the other discusses relationship groups and derives kinds. These two orthogonal lines of reasoning meet each other in biological systematics in discussing the same subject, ie, biological systematics, but not the same subject, ie, kinds and relationship groups, respectively, at the same time. They thus think they talk about the same thing, but do actually not share a single common point (ie, meaning of a concept). Instead, they dance an orthogonal dance around the insolubility that "kinds can't be real without single entities, and relationship groups can't be real without kinds". Both of them think that there is a solution to be found, which actually is the only shared point between them, and also the point that drags them into this orthogonal dance.

The orthogonal dance between the two possible lines of logical reasoning does thus not have any single solution -.neither kinds nor relationship groups comes before the other, ie, is more real. However, this lack of solution means that one of them has to end in ambiguity and the other in paradoxical contradiction, since these are the only possibilities except unambiguity. Concerning this issue, Betrand Russell demonstrated in 1901 that assuming as an axiom that kinds comes before relationship groups, ie, that kinds are real, which cladistics assumes, is paradoxically contradictory. This fact leaves the axiom that relationship groups, fundamentally single entities, comes first, ie, is real as the consistent (although ambiguous) alternative. It means that assuming that relationship groups comes first, ie, are real, as Linnean systematics does, is the consistent alternative, although it may appear illogical to cladists.

A thorough consideration of the contradiction between Linnean systematics (Evolutionary taxonomy) and cladistics in biological systematics does thus result in Linnean systematics (Evolutionary taxonomy) as the winner, although it was invented before Darwin's theory of evolution. This fact is something biological systematists have to try to understand for the coming millenias of years (they obviously can't today) to escape the eternal othogonal dance around a lacking single "correct" solution.

Cladistics is the belief in a single true tree of life

Cladistics is a belief, like Christianity and Islam, - the belief in a single true tree of life. Similar to all other beliefs it is also contradictory. Cladists may think that their belief is scientific, but this belief about the belief remains to be turned into science by finding this imaginary single true tree of life.

Similar to Higg's particle-ists, cladists may claim that they have found the single true tree with a certain probability, but at which probability can they (we) conclude that they (we) have found a particular kind of entity (ie, Higg's particle or biological species), when the probability actually can never reach 1, since there are always at least two different but just as probable kinds of entities? When can they (we) claim that they (we) have closed the gap that distinguishes reality from our comprehension of it, when there will always remain a contradiction? When can they (we) claim to have taken this final step; when they (we) actually can't take it?

I think that both Higg's particle-ists and cladists are ridiculous. They strive so tremendously hard to prove (positively) that they are correct, although many philosophers have demonstrated that positive proof of correctness is impossible. Haven't they read anything of what have been written in this issue or have they forgot it? Are they ignorant or stupid?

A long time has passed since since Simpson and Ashlock had intelligent discussions about evolution. Today the discussion in this issue is just cladist-confused. What in hell is the "paraphyletic groups" that cladists hate, the goats of Jesus?, and, what are the holophyletic groups they call "clade": the Father in Heaven? The dream? Why should we chase this impossible dream at all, when it can't be reached? Are we stupid?
     

Cladistics and Linnean systematics are merely the two possible classificatory solutions to "the problem of universals"

The "problem of universals" is an ancient problem in metaphysics about whether universals exist or not. This problem has two contradictory (orthogonal) solutions: Aristotelian essentialism and Plato's theory of forms, the former assuming that they do and the latter that they don't (at least not in the same reality as reality). Cladistics is consistent with the former and Linnean systematics is consistent with the latter, and they are mutually contradictory (ie, orthogonal). However, since classification of reality (for example into either clades or into genera, families, orders, etcetera) does not influence reality itself, Cladistics and Linnean systematics are merely the two possible (orthogonal) classificatory solutions to the problem of universals, Aristotelian essentialism and Plato's theory of forms, respectively.

This fact is, however, hidden behind the mutual contradiction between these two possible classificatory solutions by that it turns the difference between them into an existential problem for cladists and into an erroneous existential claim of cladistics to Linnean systematists. The mutual contradiction between them thus tilts the fact that they are merely the two possible (orthogonal) classificatory solutions to "the problem of universals" into a problem of cladistics' existential claim (ie, that universals exist). This claim was thus, as I have explained in recent posts on this blog, shown to be inconsistent by Betrand Russell in 1901 by what later became known as Russell's paradox (for those that hadn't understood this fact before, unlike Plato and many others).

It means that a biological systematist has to decide whether he/she believes that universals are real or not, ie, choose side between Aristotelian essentialism on the one hand and Plato's theory of forms/nominalism on the other, because the former leads to cladistic classification and the latter to Linnean systematics. However, if he/she chooses the former (ie, cladistic classification), then he/she has to be aware that it is inconsistent, ie, lacking consistent solution. None of them can thus reach the idea that cladistics calls "The Tree of Life".

On biological systematics and "True Trees of Life"

The "new" (actually pre-scientific) approach in biological systematics that is called "cladistics" rests on the idea, actually belief, that "there is a single True Tree of Life" (which thus is possible for us to find).

This belief may appear sensible in the light of Darwin's theory "on the origin of species", but is actually an illusion emerging from a combination of Darwin's theory and a generally typological approach. The illusion is, however, not easy to disclose.

The problem with the belief resides in that such "True Tree" in practice is a trace backwards in time from the situation today, and that the situation today in practice can be classified in several different, but just as "true" ways, because it means that there are several True Trees of Life per definition. The fact that the situation today thus in practice is ambiguous, moreover means that the possible "True Trees" in practice are contradictory. (The idea (ie, belief) that there should be a single unambiguous classification of the situation today is falsified by the fact that classification is inherently orthogonal and thus ultimately paradoxically contradictory, also shown by Russell's paradox).

The problem with the cladistic belief is thus not that there isn't a single True Tree of Life, but that there are several contradictory True Trees of Life. The problem with this fact for the belief is that the fact that these True Trees of Life are contradictory means that they can't be consistently summarized in a single True Tree of Life, but can instead only be consistently assembled in an orthogonal system of classification, like the Linnean systematics (and thus also evolutionary taxonomy).

It means that the founding idea (ie, belief) for cladistics, ie, that "there is a single True Tree of Life" (which thus is possible for us to find), is wrong. Fact is that there is no such thing to be found. Instead, there are several contradictory True Trees of Life which can only be consistently (coherently) assembled using an orthogonal system of classification, like the Linnean systematics (and thus also evolutionary taxonomy). Cladistics is thus an erroneous belief in a single True Tree of Life, whereas Linnean systematics is a consistent (coherent) assembly of the True Trees of Life.

The error in cladistic reasoning

If we observe a dichotomously branching process, like an asexual propagation of cells, then we can classify this process in two different ways: (1) using an orthogonal system of classes as in the Linnean system, or (2) using a single class as in cladistics.

The difference between these kinds of classification is that an orthogonal system is internally consistent by avoiding the paradox of classification (ie, Russell's paradox), whereas a "single class" classification is inconsistent by encountering the paradox of classification (ie, Russell's paradox). It means that an orthogonal system is consistently consistent (ie, all possible classifications are consistent), whereas a single class classification is consistently inconsistent (ie, all possible classifications are inconsistent).

The cladistic idea (actually belief) that there is a single consistent "single class" classification to be found, which it calls "The True Tree of Life", is thus erroneous. A "single class" classification can in fact never reach consistency, because it requires that the class entity is inconsistent, which, in turn, would turn it inconsistent. Consistent inconsistency thus can't break even.

The error in cladistic reasoning resides in that it implicitly assumes as an axiom that the entities that are to be classified IS a class (for example cells) instead of IS CLASSIFIED as a class (for example cells). It thus rests on the erroneous axiom that classes are real, instead of being created by us. And, not unexpectedly, it leads to the erroneous conclusion that there is a single consistent "single class" classification to be found (which it calls "The True Tree of Life"). This hypothesized classification is thus actually a paradox that is inherent in classification (called Russell's paradox). This paradox can also be called "the impossibility of objective subjectivity". It tells us that subjectivity (ie, inconsistency) can never reach objectivity (ie, consistency), contrary to what cladistics claims, but does in this position instead encounter a paradox that we call Russell's paradox. Russell's paradox is thus actually the interface between subjectivity and objectivity - the impossibility of objective subjectivity.

This fact appears counter-intuitive to many of us, but it is just because we can't disclose subjectivity within subjectivity, since subjectivity "sees through" subjectivity. The fact thus appears more counter-intuitive the more subjective we are but less so the more objective we are. Our intuition thus depends on our preference for subjectivity (thinking in types) and objectivity (thinking in entities), respectively.   

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.    

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.