[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: a lot of fog?



In a message dated 2/13/02 11:27:57 AM EST, rowe@psych.ucsb.edu writes:

<< Ken Kinman <kinman@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
 >      Instead of watching the Olympics last night, I was working on a list 
of 
 > characters to help support my revised topology.  
 
 This is a recipe on how *NOT* to do science. >>

Since there is no empirical way to confirm or refute a cladogram by 
observation, cladistic analyses are not science but politics. In politics, it 
is perfectly permissible to accumulate support for one's position without 
regard for other positions. Creating opposing points of view and searching 
for things that remove support for one's own position becomes the job of 
one's opponents. This is, if you look closely, exactly how cladistic analyses 
are currently undertaken.