Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:

By Menvall
Contributor profile | More stories

Story Views
Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Countering Farris’ comprehension of explanation

Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:20

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

James S. Farris et al. did 1995 publish an article titled “Explanation”, as if this article would clarify the meaning of “explanation”. Well, does it?

In the introduction. the authors state that:

“Kluge (1993) criticized the three-taxon approach of Nelson and Platnick (1991), while Platnick (1993) viewed those criticisms as largely misplaced, but each author considered his position consistent with Farris’ (1983) discussion of the relationship between parsimony and explanatory power. In that latter regard the disagreement would appear to result from overlooking some aspects of Farris’ treatment, and our purpose here is to show how this misunderstanding can be resolved.”

This statement reveals that the authors do not aim at clarifying the meaning of “explanation”, but rather at “showing how a misunderstanding” between Kluge (1993) and Nelson and Platnick (1991) concerning the relationship between parsimony and explanatory power “can be resolved” by showing that one of them is “overlooking some aspects of Farris’ (1983) treatment” of this relationship. The authors thus aim at showing how a misunderstanding between Kluge (1993) and Nelson and Platnick (1991) concerning the relationship between parsimony and explanatory power can be resolved by considering all aspects of “Farris’ treatment” of this issue.

This aim is thus not about clarifying the meaning of “explanation”, but about closing the contradiction within cladistics. However, the fact that cladistics diverges into two contradictory approaches is due to the fact that cladistics is contradictory between pattern and process, not to that different cladists comprehend Farris’ (1983) discussion of the relationship between parsimony and explanatory power correctly or erroneously, and thus that it can’t be closed. The aim simply lacks a consistent end point. There simply isn’t any single consistent relationship between parsimony and explanatory power to be found.