On the contradiction between classes forwards and backwards over time
Every presently existing sexually produced organism (like me and you) is produced by fusion of exactly one egg and one sperm. This egg and sperm, in turn, originate from exactly two organisms, which, in turn, are produced by fusions of exactly two eggs and two sperms, which, in turn, originate from exactly four organisms, and so on…
Continuing this derivation backwards in time leads to the conclusion that all presently existing sexually produced organisms must originate from a number of sexually reproducing organisms that was much higher than it is today. It induces the question: from where did all these original sexually reproducing organisms come? And, how could they originate “en masse” (ie, in a large number at once)?
The answer to this question is not to be found among any of the possible answers, but in that the derivation rests on the erroneous axiom that classes are real (ie, exist). Fact is that classes, like “organisms”, “eggs” and “sperms”, do neither exist, have originated nor have existed, but are merely our tools to discuss reality. The assumption that they do exist, an approach that is called ”class (or pattern) realism” (like “cladistics”) as opposed to “model (or process) realism (like “evolutionary taxonomy)”, is actually inconsistent (ie, internally contradictory) between backwards and forwards over time. Classes can’t be real (ie, exist), because the assumption that they are contradicts itself forwards and backwards over time.
The problem that there isn’t any answer to this question among all possible answers is thus fundamentally about consistency. Class realists (eg. cladists) do, however, think that it is about being right or wrong. The cladist Magnus Lidén expressed this belief explicitly by that he’s “rather right than consistent”. This, his preferred combination of right and inconsistent, is thus factually impossible. He can’t be right and inconsistent. He can, of course, choose to only acknowledge “forward over time”, but he can’t be right in this acknowledgement, but can only blind himself for the contradiction between forward and backward over time, because the contradiction will always be more right than his acknowledgement is. He can’t be right until he acknowledges the contradiction between forward and backward over time (and thus also consistency in itself). It is impossible to be right without being consistent.
Our choice is thus not between being right or consistent, but between being consistent or inconsistent. Being right is just a bonus within being consistent, although being wrong is the only state we can prove. Being right is thus what we are when noone can show that we’re wrong, like noone can show that I am.
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/
2012-11-10 08:50:08
Source:
