Taxonomy is science

[Peter Fritsch]

>   So, as to the question of whether taxonomy and nomenclature are
>scientific, the answer is an unfortunate no. To be truly scientific,
>something should be such that a perfectly logical outside observer (e.g.
>one from the planet Vulcan) would reach exactly the same conclusions as we
>humble humans. This is not true.

There is a critical difference between "results" and "conclusions."  As a
competent scientist, the Vulcan can obtain the same results as the
Earthling but come to completely contrary conclusions depending on the
criteria used to make those conclusions.  An easy example is "null
hypothesis = a, alternative hypothesis = b."  If the Vulcan chooses level
0.05 for the test statistic to reject the null, while the Vulcan chooses
level 0.1, they will have come to contrary conclusions with equivalent data
sets.  This is an integral part of the scientific method.

In this sense, taxonomy is a science:  in a well-done taxonomic study,
hypotheses are being put forth, criteria for rejection of those hypostheses
are expostulated, data are presented, and conclusions derived from the data
made on the basis of those criteria.

Even if one does not agree with the above, taxonomy is an essential
component of systematics, which most people would argue is a science.  If
the terminal units of a phylogeny are not defined, the phylogeny has no
meaning for the evolution of the group under study.

So, it seems to me, if one does not agree with either of these two points,
one ought to start writing to the National Endowment for the Arts for
funding.  Good luck.

Peter Fritsch                  ph:  (919)660-7369
Department of Botany           fax: (919)684-5412
Duke University                e-mail: fritschp at acpub.duke.edu
Durham, NC 27708-0339 USA