[Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids

[Richard Zander]

"Testing is testing." Well, sure, as a tautology. Bock pointed out that
testing for universals (e.g. that things always act some particular way,
in a lawful manner) is very different from testing for a single
historical event (e.g. speciation of species x happened before
speciation of species y and z, therefore (y, z) x ..... 

 

Bock said that some elements of systematics are concerned with
universals, such as inferring evolutionary processes, but systematics is
mainly "historical explanative," or stamp collecting in Rutherford's
nasty view. 

 

The manner of testing has to be different, since direct experiment on a
natural process is not possible. There is an excellent book called
"Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings"
by T. D. Cook and D. T. Campbell 1979 that demonstrates some ways of
indirect testing. 

 

*****************************
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
*****************************

________________________________

From: J. Kirk Fitzhugh [mailto:kfitzhugh at nhm.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 6:26 PM
To: Richard Zander
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids

 

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