[Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids

[J. Kirk Fitzhugh]

Much of Bock's paper is derived from Szalay & Bock (1991, Z. Zool. Syst. 
Evol. forsch. 29: 1-39). In my (Fitzhugh 2006: 46-48) Zootaxa monograph, 
I pointed out a number of problems that continue to apply to Bocks 2004 
paper. Differences between 'hard' sciences, whatever those are, and 
systematics are non-existent. Testing is testing. The 19th century 
literature is replete with marvelous discussions of the mechanics that 
have extended into the 21st. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, but 
one does have to read far more than just Popper's view of science, as 
well as recognize that what Popper offered in the way of testing was 
nothing novel.

Kirk

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Curator of Polychaetes
Invertebrate Zoology Section
Research & Collections Branch
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
Phone: 213-763-3233
FAX: 213-746-2999
e-mail: kfitzhug at nhm.org
http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/polychaetous-annelids
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Richard Zander wrote:
> I think the desperation to get exact results is response to such
> self-serving nonsense as Ernest Rutherford's comment:
> "The only true science is physics, all else is stamp collecting."
>
> Brock has nicely shown the difference (and similarities) between hard
> sciences and systematics, see my collection of papers on such stuff at:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/EvSy/2.htm 
>
>
>
>
> *****************************
> Richard H. Zander 
> Voice: 314-577-0276
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299
> St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
> and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
> *****************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of J. Kirk
> Fitzhugh
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:58 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids
>
> I'd be fascinated to actually see a valid deduction of morphology from a
> moleculoid tree, or vice versa. It's not that difficult to follow the
> rules of deduction, so why not show us? I continue not to understand why
> the most basic mechanics of testing that have been established for all
> fields of science aren't being applied here.
>
> Incongruence/congruence is a shame. It's meaningless. You're comparing
> two disparate hypotheses that have no relevance to each other. The only
> relevance those hypotheses have is to the characters used to infer the
> respective hypotheses. The nature of the evidence to which you refer is
> only evidence prompting particular hypotheses, not valid test evidence.
> Kirk
>
>