[Taxacom] Congruence in general

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All,
      It is with some trepidation that I comment on a debate involving a
philosopher (of science or anything else).  Often it boils down to
semantics and very subtle interpretations of certain terminology.  In
particular in this case, I am particularly wary of what might be meant
by "meaningless congruence". 
      While I agree that strict cladists can sometimes be deceived by
congruence in their datasets (I have detected more than one such case
among dinosaurs in particular), I wonder if these shortcomings could
result in an overreaction to congruence in general.  It seems to me that
"meaningless congruence" is probably a severe problem in such cases, but
I certainly would be hesitant in too often extrapolating those problems
to congruence in general.   Fossil taxa, especially those heavily
studied by the advocates of phylogenetic taxonomy, is a major problem,
but attacking congruence as generally "meaningless"  is probably an
overreaction which risks "throwing out the baby with the bath water". 
       I guess what I am saying is that congruence is a double-edged
sword that can be either helpful or harmful, depending on how one
applies it.  It's a bit like arguing about nuclear energy, which can be
both beneficial in its peaceful applications but also potentially
horrifying when it falls into the wrong hands.
       ---------Ken Kinman
---------------------------------------------------------
J. Kirk Fitzhugh wrote:
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.