Cladistic hypotheses

[Richard Pyle]

Wait -- I'm confused.  Is the "hypothesis" of the cladogram that: "this is
the most parsimonious arrangement of these defined sets of character states,
according to this defined algorithm for determining parsimony"?  Or, is the
hypothesis: "this cladogram prepresents the phylogenetic relationships
(based on evolutionary history) of the taxa possessing these sets of
character states"?

I don't see the former as being any more of a "hypothesis" than the
statement "2+2=4" -- which is falsifiable only insofar as whether the
symbols "2", "+", "=" and "4" conform to their defined meanings in a
mathematical construct (in the same way that defined sets of character
states are mathematically processed via a defined parsimony algorithm).

I don't see the latter as representative of the output from a computer
program.  Neither the program, nor the cladogram "hypothesise" anything.
Rather, a human hypothesises that the branch pattern of the cladogram (as
mathematically produced by the computer) *reflects* the phylogenetic
relationships (based on evolutionary history) of the taxa from which the
sets of character states were recorded.  I see this as being a "falsifiable"
statement in the sense of science (not just mathematics and application of
defined terms and formulations) -- no matter that we currently lack the
ability to actually falsify it with any real sense of confidence.  The
falsifiable part is the interpretation by the human, not the results of the
computer algorithm per se.

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
  and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html