Cladistics is the opposite to geomatics

Cladistics (ie, the belief in a single truth in the form of The Tree of Life) is the opposite to geomatics (ie,  the discipline of gathering, storing, processing, and delivering spatially referenced information). Only one of them can thus be correct: if cladistics is correct, then geomatics is over-complication, whereas if geomatics is correct, then cladistics is over-simplification.

The difference between them is that geomatics distinguishes between reference and referent, which cladistics doesn't. The question is thus whether distinction of reference and referent is overcomplication or if equalization of them is over-simplification? The question is thus whether reference and referent has to be distinguished at all?

If we do not distinguish reference and referent, then a fat man is a fat man instead of a man that is fat. If this man loses weight and becomes thin, then he is accordingly a new man, that is, a thin man, instead of being a man that has gone from being fat to being thin. The identity of this man does not reside in being an entity, but in being an entity of this or that kind. The cladistic confusion of reference and referent does thus connect the identity of an entity to any category it is allocated to, instead of to its being of an entity itself. This approach is traditionally called typology, because it attaches greater importance to which category an entity is allocated to, than to its being an entity itself. This approach has also done much harm over the history of humanity by reducing single entities into anonymous instances of a category, thereby allowing sweeping generalizations over single entities about any category.  

The cladistic confusion of reference and referent does thus anonymize entities (like you and me) in favor for categories (ie, kinds), like fat, thin, good, bad, beautiful, ugly, and so on. This approach can't be claimed to be wrong on the basis on what we have said so far, but these are the fundamental generic differences between the cladistic confusion and geomatics' distinction of reference and referent. Geomatics attaches all importance to that an entity is an entity, and no importance to which category this entity is allocated to, because allocations to categories are always provisional. No entity does necessarily belong to any category, because a non-contradictory overall categorization is impossible. This statement does, however, claim that cladistics, ie, the typological approach, is wrong by denying its practical possibility.

So, how can I support the statement that "a non-contradictory overall categorization is impossible"? Well, the fundamental support resides in that every single category contains several categories per definition. There is no single non-contradictory solution for a system wherein every unit contains both several units and several entities at the same time, per definition. Instead, units that contain both several units and several entities at the same time are contradictory between units and entities per definition.

We can thus conclude that the cladistic confusion of reference and referent is contradictory per definition, which keeping them apart isn't.Cladistics thus appears to be wrong and geomatics right, luckily.  

Cladistics is an entrance to fundamental inconsistency problems

Cladistics assumes as an axiom, claims and defines that there are true and false clasifications, although there can't be. Its axiom, claim and definition instead actually both equals and differentiates infinite classes (ie, classes) and finite classes (ie, categories) at the same time, which is contradictory. Fact is, instead, that cladistics is a contradictory, actually paradoxically contradictory, conflation of infinite classes with finite classes.

Cladistics is thus not a solution to any problem, but an entrance to fundamental inconsistency problems.

On the illusion called cladistics

Cladistics is simply the claim (assertion) that there is a True, ie, non-contradictory, classification to be found. It is the dream of total unambiguity presented as a claim (assertion).

The problem with cladistics is simply that its claim (assertion) is wrong. There is no True, ie, non-contradictory, classification to be found, because if there had been, then change would have been an illusion and time would not have been relative to space.

Cladistics is thus totally, meaning totally, wrong. It is, in fact, the mental desease we call paranoia. It may appear "natural" to paranoids, but it is just because it is the paranoia.

Cladists can't understand because they deny understanding

The class clade is a conflation of the classes monophyletic group and holophyletic group. The class clade is thus polysemous. The problem with this conflation (polysemiaty) is that also the class paraphyletic group is a class of monophyletic group, because it means that the class paraphyletic group bridges the classes holophyletic group and monophyletic group, thus actually being an interface between them.

The approach called cladistics, only acknowledging the class clade and denying the class paraphyletic group, does thus actually deny interfaces between classes in a generic sense. It explains why cladists believe that the class clade can be found, although it is just the interface between objectivity and subjectivity, because it is impossible to understand what one denies.

Cladists thus can't understand because they deny understanding.    

Cladistics - the victory and defeat of realism

Realists (like cladists) tend to exaggerate the ability of science. They tend to believe (and claim) that science can find "The Truth", although the sole idea of a single truth itself has been dismissed by several philosophers of science. It is just as if realists can't accept facts, but instead consistently try to free themselves from the shackles of facts. It is just as if they consistently try to find the treasure at the foot of the rainbow although this treasure, of course, is not to be found.

Realists are thus obviously looking for something else than science can provide. Science can only test whether statements are true by testing them against competitive statements with reference to reality, nothing else. And, being true in this sense does not mean being "The Thuth", but merely being more true than the competitive statement. Science is just about modeling reality, nothing else. Science is a craft, like carpentry, forging, painting, or any other craft, building models of reality. It can't find truths beyond what we see, because it does not have any tools to penetrate beyond what we see.

Realists thus appear to have a romantic view on science - that it can penetrate reality from what we see to what can possibly lurk behind it - a view that in practice is commonly interpreted as what they personally think, or believe, it is. 

The problem for realists, as cladistics has shown, is thus that every theory on something that lurks behind what we see is contradictory, paradoxically contradictory, by being a belief (which also Ludwig Wittgenstein explained). The problem for realists is thus that their approach is contradictory, paradoxically contradictory. Their axiom that classes are real is simply contradictory, paradoxically contradictory. Cladistics has thus revealed that realism is contradictory, paradoxically contradictory. It ought to be the Waterloo for realism, but realism will probably survive in the same way as it has survived till this day, namely by changing focus from its defeat to something else. Realism is namely not a kind of science, but rather oppotunism. It is not consistent, but consistently inconsistent, and in cladistics it has found its ultimate consistent inconsistency.It has found the victory that is its defeat.

Left is nominalism with a touch of realism.

 .    

Får kladistiken kläder om tillräckligt många såger att den har det?

Kladistik antar att vi kan "rekonstruera" det sanna Livets Träd, trots att något sådant Livets Träd naturligtvis inte kan hittas, eftersom det förutsätter att de olika specifika träden är lika, vilket de inte nödvändigtvis är. Man skulle naturligtvis kunna tänka sig att de olika specifika träden skulle kunna sammanfattas i ett enda sant Livets Träd, men det förutsätter att alla "klader" och "parafyletiska grupper" i de olika specifika träden sammanfaller, vilket de inte nödvändigtvis gör. Ett enda sant Livets Träd är alltså en praktiskt omöjlig tanke.

Ändå finns det kladister (som Per Sundberg och Mikael Härlin) som hävdar att de olika specifika livets träd faktiskt kan sammanfattas i ett enda Livets Träd, tvärs emot faktumet att de inte kan det. Hur ska man handskas med ett sådant hävdande? Vad ska man göra när det inte räcker med att visa att ett hävdande faktiskt är fel? Om man inte kan stoppa något som faktiskt är fel, vad kan man då stoppa? Vad gör vi, t ex, om en ny Hitler dyker upp och den tidens Per Sundberg och Mikael Härlin hävdar att han faktiskt har rätt, tvärs emot fakta? Måste vi då likt Torgny Segerstedt slåss för att hävda fakta emot ideologer? Väger en mängd människor tyngre än fakta? Har Kejsaren kläder om 1000 personer säger att han har det, 10 000 personer, 100 000 personer, 1 000 000 personer? Får Kejsaren kläder om tillräckligt många säger att han har det?

Nej, faktum är att kladistiken är en ny form av tanken om "naturliga grupper", vilken har dykt upp gång på gång i mänsklighetens historia. Vi tycks vara svaga för denna tanke, trots att den i en enkel kritisk granskning är omöjlig. Aldrig kommer någon att rekonstruera ett enda sant Livets Träd, därför att något sådant kan inte finnas per definition. Jakten på det är alltså tokig. 
 

  

Cladistics rests on a delusion

Cladistics is searching for the class clade.This search is, however, vain, because there is no class clade to find; the class is contradictory, paradoxically contradictory, because classes are not real.

Instead, the class clade is the end of the assumption (ie, axiom) that classes are real. It is the empirical proof that this axiom is wrong. It is the contradictory (paradoxically contradictory) end on beginning with the axiom that classes are real.

The class clade is thus a delusion. The question is thus when this fact will stop biological systematists searching it? Never? Are cladists incapable of understanding? Can't they drag themselves out of the conceptual melt-down they have landed in. Can't they distance themselves from their own classification so that they can see the difference between their comprehension (ie, subjectivity) and the objective reaity? Can't they see the forest because of all trees? Are they forever lost in insensability (like Hennig was)?

Cladists are typologists. Racists are also typologists. But, as with differences in the generic and the specific, typologists are not necessarily racists, but racists are necessarily typologists. Typology is thus an entrance to racism. The fact that the class clade is a delusion does thus counterattack racism in gate by showing that typology is contradictory, paradoxically contradictory. Already the gate to racism is thus contradictory, paradoxically contradictory. Typologists are groping for an existential handle for prejudices, but, unfortunately for them and fortunately for the rest of us, there is no such handle to find. Instead, typology is factually contradictory, paradoxically contradictory.

I welcome all typologists (not only cladists) to comment this post. It would be fantastic if we could bury typology forever.