On the ancient idea of a single true tree of life
The ancient idea of a single “true” classification of life – “the true tree of life” – (in today’s version called “the clade of life”) was falsified 1901 by Bertrand Russell by revealing that classification ultimately leads to paradox (later called Russell’s paradox).
This fact means that classification can only be inconsistent or consistent, ie, either conflating or not conflating classes, not true or false, ie, one correct and the rest erroneous. Inconsistent are all flat classifications, ie, classifying entities simply into classes of classes of classes, etcetera, whereas consistent are all orthogonal classifications, ie, classifying entities into categories of classes, like Linnean systematics. The categories of orthogonal classifications (like the Linnean “species”, “genera”, “families”, and so on) effectively keep classes apart so to avoid conflating them and thus avoid Russell’s paradox. Orthogonal classification and the need for it was explained by the ancient Greek Aristotle already for about 2,350 years ago.
The German entomologist Willi Hennig did not understand these fundamentals of classification, but did instead misunderstand Russell’s paradox as the ultimate “true” classification, ie, “the tree (today “clade”) of life”. This misunderstanding is “natural” in that Russell’s paradox indeed appears as “the ultimate true classification” in the subjective perspective, but the problem with it is that it is practically empty in that all possible solutions are paradoxically contradictory (as Bertrand Russell showed). It (ie, Russell’s paradox) thus would indeed have been “the ultimate true classification” if it had had a consistent solution, but then “consistency” would also have been inconsistent and ”inconsistency” would have been consistent.
Fact is thus that there isn’t any single “true” classification of life – a “true tree of life” – (in today’s version called “the clade of life”) per definition. This fact may be difficult to understand, but it can be understood as that the “true tree of life” is a process, not a pattern, and that we can’t classify a single process unambiguously per definition, since it IS ambiguous per definition. We can’t TURN “ambiguous” into “unambiguous” in a phenomenon that IS ambiguous without turning “unambiguous” into “ambiguous” at the same time. We can’t FORCE an ambiguous phenomenon TO BE unambiguous. Reality actually doesn’t care about how we describe it, we can only choose between being consistent or inconsistent, and the belief in single “true” classification of life – a “true tree of life” – (in today’s version called “the clade of life”) is in fact consistently inconsistent, which Russell revealed leads to paradox.
Today, science has thus reached understanding that the ancient idea of a single true tree of life is actually a paradox (although there are still biological systematists searching for it).
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/
Read more at Menvall’s Blog: change on different levels
Source:
