[Taxacom] More evidence turtles are diapsids

[J. Kirk Fitzhugh]

True, the differences to which you refer are between the nature of the 
test evidence required for testing theories (universals) and hypotheses, 
as well as the relations between observer, causes, and effects. These 
are matters that have been recognized since the 19th century, and can 
even be found in Popper's writings, as well as other 20th century works. 
I've pointed this out at great length in my own work. But, the 
differences are nothing terribly earth shattering.

My point all along is that we continue not to correctly address testing 
in lieu of meaningless congruence, which is no test whatsoever and not a 
rational means to assess the veracity of hypotheses.

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:
>
> "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 <mailto: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
>
>