Why don't we simply reject race biology (ib the form of cladistics)?

When cladistics introduces race biology again, why don't we simply reject it?

Against stupidity (like cladistics) do facts battle in vain

Cladistics was actually rejected before it emerged. Already in 1901, Bertrand Russell demonstrated that classification ultimately leads to paradox, which is the appraoch of Cladistics. The fact that Cladistics leads to paradox was thus known before Cladistcs emerged. Cladists thus ought to consider known facts before it claims that facts are wrong.

Against stupidity, like Cladistics, do facts battle in vain.

On the fundamental problem for Biological systematics

We (humans) invented concepts, and then started conceptualizing reality. The fundamental problem for this endeavor is that concepts (classification) is inherently orthogonal (see Russell's paradox), because it thereby lacks an unambiguous solution.This fact eventually led Biological systematics to Linné's consistent conceptualization of the biological diversity.

The German Nazi entomologist (ie, insect researcher) Willi Hennig did, however, take this endeavor one step further by starting to conceptualize conceptualization (later called Cladistics), as if conceptualization itself is the reality it conceptualizes instead of the reality. The problem with this step is simply that conceptualization isn't the reality it conceptualizes, but is instead in practice a paradox (see Russell's paradox). This step thus leads into barking up the wrong tree (or "jumping into crazy barrel", as we say in Sweden), or "screwing up matters", entering the back side of conceptualization where everything are up-side-down and contradictory.

Hennig did none the less get followers (called "cladists"), which took his step one step further by cutting off a return to the right "tree" (or "barrel") by boldly claiming (asserting) that this "tree" ("barrel") indeed IS the right "tree" ("barrel") and denying the right "tree" ("barrel"). It left the only way back to the right "tree" ("barrel") via a conceptualization of a conceptualization of a conceptualization of reality, which will take some time to find since it is a quite complicated track to follow. (Or by simply forgetting Cladistics).

The course of events above is actually just one more turn in Biological systematics' consistent tilting between the right "tree" (barrel"), also called "nominalism", and the wrong "tree" ("barrel"), also called "realism", due to its impossible fundamental aim to "find the true classification", which thus is a paradox. The discipline simply can't come to rest even concerning its fundamental approach, because there are always some biological systematists that don't understand this fundamental fact (ie, that the notion "a true classification" actually is a paradox). Instead, the discipline appears to remain a battle field for nominalism contra realism forever... (A "true classification" will it none the less never find).

Why doesn't universities inform presumptive students that biological systematics actually is a playhouse for fools?

When I entered biological systematics in university, I thought it was a stable science about living organisms. However, soon after I entered it, I discovered that it was not about living organisms at all, but about a paranoic sorting of types (ie, classes) into a "true tree of life". Why doesn't universities inform presumptive students that biological systematics actually is a playhouse for fools? (Bertrand Russell demonstrated that such a "true tree of life" is actually a paradox about a century ago. How on earth can this idea dominate biological systematics today?)

The concept "clade" is like the concept "God"

The concept "clade" is like the concept "God", we can think it and we can say it, but we can't find it. I will gladly pay a million dollar to anyone that can find and show me one clade (in reality, of course. Not as an illustration. As illustrations, we can find anything, even pink elephants).

Cladistics denies what it searches for

Cladistics does not acknowledge the difference between reality and our comprehension of reality, and does thereby deny interfaces in a generic sense. It means that Cladisics actually acts as an interface between reality and our comprehension of it, that is, is contradictory between the two. As such, it can't find what it searches for (ie, "the true tree of life") per definition, since it factually denies what it is searching for. Finding what one searches for does at least require acknowledging it.

If cladists aren't stupid, then who is?

Cladists have turned conceptualization up-side-down.

It raises the question: if cladists aren't stupid, then who is?