: Real Science and propaganda

[John Grehan]

At 07:14 PM 3/30/01 -0500, you wrote:
>People have asked whether I was being sarcastic when I used the words REAL
>science. For those of you who don't know me, permit me to say that I have
>always clearly stated that nomenclature IS NOT SCIENCE.

It seems then that this distinction is nothing more than propaganda, and
a kind that one tends to see historically as a ploy to discredit opposing
views.

 I will now go
>further and state: Those of us who use Linnaean nomenclature without
>applying Hennigian grouping and ranking criteria (synapomorphy, age of
>origin), need to warn their users.

Again this is a propaganda statment. It holds only if one accepts the
necessity.


>Phylogenetic Warning:
>Comparing Linnaean Taxa above the species level may be injurious to your
>Science. Always consult a Systematist first.

Comaring anything may be "injurious" (rather obscure) to anything. Seems
to be a trite statement.

. The only really valid comparisons
>are those among sister-groups/clades (ala Mitter et alia).

Again, this is a particular philosophy of comparison. It might be true, it
might not - and then only against the specificed criteria.

nd Brent Mishler
>may also be right about the species level too, as clearly species concepts
>across the full span of life, from microbes to humans, are not comparable
>either.

The alternative philosophy is that everything is comparable to everything
else in some way or other. Vicariance cladists have attacked Croizat
for using non-monophyletic groups yet the analyses demonstrated empirical
geomorphic correlations (i.e. there was a corroboration in the real world).


>So, in short, one of the positive aspects of the PhyloCode is that it
>attempts to incorporate REAL science into its nomenclature.

Again, propaganda. Only true by the terms of the argument.

And that should
>force the others to admit that Linnaean nomenclature is an information
>retrieval system based on unique keys (names), but beyond that beware of
>what you attempt to derive from it.

Beware, perhaps, of everything.

>
>So to repeat my original warning:
>
>We should not be framing this issue as another paradigm war in which
>Linnaean nomenclature is going to be massacred* and the Phylocode is going
>to be triumphant.

Should, should not. Maybe, maybe not.

I fought in the evolutionary/Phenetic/Cladistic paradigm
>wars of the 1960s-70s. As a community we all lost.

Propaganda. It might be said that as a 'comunity' (another obscure reference)
be all gained in some way.

 So, today we need to work
>together, recognizing our strengths.

Working 'together' by attacking under the umbrella of "REAL SCIECE"


. Cladistic information is critical for our
>Science.

'Our Science" - another nice obscure propaganda term. Perhaps if I had more
experience in language and propaganda analysis I could dissect this further.

. It
>focuses attention on Linnaeus' original idea of SEPARATING SCIENCE
>(taxonomy, diagnoses, etc.) from Nomenclature, words acting as unique
>information keys for effective communication.

Is this an explicit statement by Linnaeus?


How much Science should be
>built into our  nomenclature? And how?**** Let's address those questions,
>rather than throwing our lives down in "Linnaeus's Last Stand."

Oh yes 'lets' be followers.

>** Also, don't try to label us as "creationists" because we use "Linnaean
>nomenclature."

Any more than labelling nomenclature as not 'REAL SCIENCE'


John Grehan