[Taxacom] natural paraphyly (was: stem eudicots of NCBI)

[Richard Zander]

Well, science is generally pluralist in theory. Few fields are so well understood that a unified (e.g., field) theory encompasses all.

Science is paraconsistent, with multiple, sometimes quite disparate theories dealing with aspects of one phenomenon. E.g., particle and wave theories of light. We test (proof) theories with falsification or continuing support, in a pragmatic context.

It is not, however, dialtheistic, a situation that accepts the idea that there are true contradictions. 



 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
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 John Grehan
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:36 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] natural paraphyly (was: stem eudicots of NCBI)

There is, in my opinion, nothing necessarily wrong with pluralist
methodology as such, but that does not mean that it's the right thing to
do. It would be like combining panbiogeography and molecular
dispersalism in the name of pluralism. Pluralism is a political, not
scientific, concept.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Zander
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:09 PM
To: Jim Croft; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] natural paraphyly (was: stem eudicots of NCBI)

Okay, Jim, you need deprogramming real bad. 

Scientific rigor in this day-and-age means precision of statistical
results. Postmodernly, all systematics is brain-clamped by the falsely
relevant fact that Markov chain analysis only requires present-day data.
History begins when phylogeneticists put their pants on in the morning.
We use Markov chain analysis when traits are stochastic and evolutionary
results are entirely random/drunkard's walk; but they are not since
selection clearly operates some or even much of the time. 

Ken commented that recognizing paraphyletic taxa, at least sometimes, is
a good thing for systematics. This is a discussion of theory, not
mathematical fact. He suggests a pluralist methodology for
classification. What's wrong with that? 

I suggest the same, but with somewhat different criteria for estimating
evolutionary relationships. My pluralism combines cladistic exactness
and caulistic theory (the latter often derided as just-so-stories, mere
narrative, intuitive blatherings, and evil dissention that undermines
the power and funding of phylogenetic nabobs, panjandrums and
magnificoes). 

Okay, Jim, you don't really need deprogramming. I just used your note as
a springboard for another slightly polemical "clarification." 

R.


* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
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 Jim Croft
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 1:21 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] natural paraphyly (was: stem eudicots of NCBI)

I am quite prepared to listen to arguments for and against the merits or
otherwise of paraphyly, but the statement below is totally subjective
and has all the scientific rigour of a cooking competition judgement.

Surely taxonomy and systematics can do better than this in its claim to
science?

What next?  Rejection of excessive evolution?  Compromise with special
creation?  Just the right amount of quantum physics?  Popular vote on
the acceptable force of gravity or limiting pi to three decimal places?
Declaring a tomato a vegetable? (oh, people, probably closet
paraphylists, already do that!)

Head... meet desk... repeat...

jim

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
wrote:
> Instead of totally rejecting paraphyletic taxa, he should have taken a

> middle course that rejected ONLY excessive paraphyly.

--

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here