Assumptions and reliability of solutions

[Lyn.Craven at CSIRO.AU]

The best test of a non-cladistic study is for another person to repeat
the study.    This is an excellent method.

Career-wise, it does not help a young scientist starting out to find
that the person who last revised the group got it right.   Publishing
affirmations does not earn the same brownie points in our flawed
science-comunication process.  Career-wise, it is best to show that
everyone else was/is wrong and the world must now march to a new
tune...............

Lyn


-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
Behalf Of E. Parmasto
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:41 AM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Assumptions and reliability of solutions


Richard Zander:
> The difference between a cladist and a non-cladist can be summarized 
> in the following manner:
   etc., &c.

For me, the main difference is that probability /
reliability of the results of a cladistic study
(phylogenetic trees, resulting classifications, etc.)
may be somehow measured / characterized. What
about reliability of the results of a non-cladistic
study? Are there any good methods to evaluate the
probability of phylogenetic constructions /
hypotheses made by non-cladists (not including
pheneticists) ?
Erast Parmasto
******************