[Taxacom] Intuition in taxonomy

[Karl Magnacca]

While I agree with much of what you and Tom wrote, I think things are
more complex.  Part of it comes down to the definition of "intuition". 
The one you gave appears to be essentially restricted to snap judgements
that are done on the basis of fundamental knowledge and biases without
much conscious consideration, but my intuitive feeling is that much of
what we call intuition is in fact a similar kind of computation to what
you describe for taxonomy, just done more rapidly and often with less
consideration.

Karl

On Mon, March 2, 2009 3:32 pm, Richard Zander wrote:
> A colleague recently wrote me that alpha taxonomy has been called
> "intuititve" and therefore had the reputation of not being particularly
> scientific, so I should perhaps not base certain of my methodological
> novelties (e.g. use of nonmonophyly to identify named shared ancestors)
> on its efficacy.
>
> Here is my argument, after some digging in a dictionary: Intuition is
> the direct perception of truth, without inference, perhaps by some inate
> template for identifying reality. It is a leap of understanding, and
> although such leaps do contribute to science, alpha taxonomy in my
> opinion largely does not proceed this way. (It would be a lot less work,
> otherwise.)
>
> Alpha taxonomy is dianoetic, meaning using discursive reasoning. This is
> ratiocination that "runs" from premise through analysis and/or synthesis
> to a conclusion. The premise of alpha taxonomy (nowadays) is that
> organisms are grouped in nature in various ways and apparent heirarchies
> because of processes of evolution, and we can identify such groups
> through standard methods. The human computer-brain is certainly adept at
> this given the very similar clusterings obtained from molecular
> analysis. Surely initial indentifications by studying published floras,
> publication of new taxa that fit no previous taxon, and revisionary work
> cannot be said to not involve inference on the basis of sorting by
> several metrics,  evaluation of biogeographical patterns, and tempering
> measures of similarity with concern for convergence through recourse to
> evolutionary theory. That alpha taxonomy is to a considerable extent an
> exact science is shown by the many measurements and discussion of their
> importance in systematic publications, and description of variation and
> conservative traits at a level of resolution appropriate for
> biodiversity, and indeed evolutionary, analysis.
>
> Replicability has been an issue. I do not doubt that any five alpha
> taxonomists will come up with similar (though not exact) taxonomies on
> some unknown group. The apparently exactly replicable nature of other
> methodologies may well be due to agreement on the part of the
> practicioners to all make the same mistakes (biases, assumptions) like
> weighting all traits uniformly or using the same models of trait
> evolution. Any five pheneticists or phylogeneticists may attain the same
> degree of disagreement (or lack of resolution) if each were encouraged
> to weight traits differently, e.g. as they vary in a population
> (suggested by Farris in 1971, I think) or following some kind of
> covariation analysis.
>
> In sum, the classifications of apha taxonomy are not intuitive, but are
> inferential and central.  I wonder what taxacomers think of this?
>
> I am encouraged by the establishment of a special program at the
> National Science Foundation to support revisionary work as such. (That I
> could not easily get to this program from the DEB home page because
> there was no quickly identified menu of programs, plus my
> inattentiveness, was reason for my previous squawk on Taxacom.)
>
> _______________________
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299
> St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
> richard.zander at mobot.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The entire Taxacom Archive back to 1992 can be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or use a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>
>


=====================
Karl Magnacca
Postdoctoral Researcher
Department of Zoology
Trinity College, Dublin 2
Ireland