The belief in a single true tree of life is contradictory
We, phylogeneticists, assume that biodiversity has a common origin. This assumption does not, however, mean that there also is a single true description of this origin, ie, a true tree of life. On the contrary, the belief that there is a single true description of this origin, ie, a true tree of life, actually contradicts the assumption that biodiversity has a common origin by denying change itself.
That is, if our assumption that biodiversity has a common origin is correct, then there isn’t any true tree of life, whereas if the belief that there is a true tree of life is correct, then biodiversity hasn’t a common origin. Both of them can’t be correct at the same time, because they contradict each other. The assumption that biodiversity has a common origin is simply incompatible with (ie, contradictory to) the belief that there is a true tree of life.
This fact may appear counter-intuitive to some of us (those the rest of us call cladists), but why should their claim on “intuitivity” reign? Why should their contradictory notion that a common origin of biodiversity also can be described with a true tree of life be considered intuitive ? History is, of course, just as “true” as present is, but why should it be considered intuitive to believe that this fact also means that history (or, for that sake, present) can be described in a single “true” way? Isn’t it instead intuitive to believe that it is the other way around, that is, that history (like present) can be described in several just as true different ways? Why should the notion that it is possible to describe history unambiguously when it is not possible to describe present unambiguously be considered intuitive instead of the notion that it is not possible to describe history (like present) unambiguously? Why should it be considered intuitive to be contradictory instead of consistent?
No, this disagreement between us (phylogeneticists) was turned into a battle between cladists and the rest of us in the 1980-ies, which cladists won by majority (ie, fifty million flies can’t be wrong, eat shit), although they are contradictory. After this, biological systematics has turned into the same chaos as it was before Linné. Once again, biological systematists are trying to find a fusion between object and class (ie, the tree of life) that can’t be found, because it is contradictory. In this aspect, biological systematics is pitiful. Why does it attract so many of us that don’t understand science?
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/
2012-11-24 19:41:06
Source: http://menvall.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/the-belief-in-a-single-true-tree-of-life-is-contradictory/
Source:
