[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: T-J Extinction event article (more media errors?)
In a message dated 5/13/01 1:22:51 PM EST, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< I find this paper quite unconvincing, seems like Benton hasn't read most
of the PhyloCode (www.ohiou.edu/phylocode). I'll see if I can find what was
said on the PhyloCode mailing list about it (it did start a discussion
This is because you are predisposed to adopting the PhyloCode. It's something
like trying to convince a republican to become a democrat, or vice versa.
Some people can find even a mathematical proof unconvincing, let alone a
subject as fraught with subjectivity as the rules of taxonomy.
Benton's reasons are fine, but I agree that the paper could have mustered
some stronger arguments in support of those reasons. The strongest arguments,
however, might become apparent only >after< the PhyloCode were implemented,
and then it would be too late.
As for >reading< the PhyloCode, I certainly don't have the stomach to wade
through >all< of that stuff. I don't think that's necessary, given what we
already know about the attitudes of its compilers. You don't have to read the
entire Das Kapital to know what Marxism is all about, for example; nor do you
have to read the entire Origin of Species to understand what evolution by
natural selection is all about. In the final analysis, the PhyloCode is about
a cladist clique trying to set itself up to be the arbiters of taxonomy, to
control what is and is not going to be acceptable as valid taxonomy, and to
erode or remove some of the freedom of naturalists to describe and publish
what they consider to be valid taxa in their works.