Turning around

[Jason at]

Dear John,

I beg to differ. The fact is that you do not debate, you harangue. So we are
doomed never to come to an understanding. Such is life.

By the way, the example of G.G.Simpson is very appropriate. He attempted to
refute a theory he did not understand with data he didn´t quite explain.

Best,

Jason


>From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
>To: "Jason Mate" <jfmate at hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [TAXACOM] Turning around
>Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:15:14 -0500
>
>Jason,
>
>Thanks for your interest in the matter. But it's a fact of life that
>people will not necessarily come to agreement no matter how much
>something is debated. Simpson believed in the fixity of continents until
>his death. Your position is no more intrinsically intransigent than
>mine.
>
>Responses below:
>
>
>:
> >
> > >... My fixed idea is that overall resemblance
> > >can yield an incorrect phylogeny....
> >
> > True of any data.
>
>Yes, but at least by limiting analysis to sets of uniquely shared
>characters one eliminates the errors caused by shared primitive
>characters.
> >
> > >... that is only apparent when compared to
> > >the results of an analysis of uniquely shared characters.....
> >
> > And how do you find this out? One suspects that your preconceived
>ideas
> > (opinion) will decide.
>
>When a cladistic analysis using sets of uniquely shared characters
>differs from that produced by overall similarity one can pose the
>solution as error in overall similarity due to the effect of primitive
>retention. The typical crocodile-reptile vs crocodile-bird comparison.
>
> > So your casus belli is that cladistics, with its neutral -albeit
> > imperfect-
> > approach to data analysis removes personal input from the end solution
> > (the
> > "why won't the data say what I want"...happens to all of us). You
> > therefore
> > prefer the unassailable "opinion" which makes use of remarks such as
> > "closer", "in between" and "link". Being an inherently nonfalsifiable
> > method, this may explain why the rest of us have difficulty discussing
> > your
> > ideas: there is nothing to discuss. Either we accept what you say or
>we
> > don't. I am inclined to go for the latter.
>
>Can't comment on the above - too vague and don't understand what you
>mean or how you derived it from my statements. Certainly never said
>anyone has to accept what I say any more than I have to accept what
>anyone else says.
>
>Cheers, John
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jason
> >
>