[Taxacom] barcode of life wins Ebbe Nielsen Prize

[Richard Zander]

Doug:

Testable hypotheses? I've recently discovered structuralism, the search for hidden structures or patterns in nature or the human mind. It was started by Saussure in linguistics, and is now found in many fields (check Wikipedia). 

Structuralism is intended as a replacement for empiricism. Structures are pretty much engraved in the ground of being, and all theory and all observation is just human-generated window dressing. Systematics has been a structuralist stomping ground for the past 30 years, and "testable hypotheses" are really quite passé. 

*****************************
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 Doug Yanega
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:17 PM
To: TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] barcode of life wins Ebbe Nielsen Prize


If one does not share that belief, then the claim that COI is a reliable species-level marker looks like a massive tautology. What, after all, is the *independent test* that can be used to support or refute the hypothesis that any given "species" has a distinct *and* unique COI profile? Building a tree of haplotypes is not a test of species boundaries. Isn't science supposed to be based on testable 
hypotheses??