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

Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

"Jack" (alincodj2k@yahoo.com) wrote:

<I have a number of problems with cladistics, not the least of which is the
almost entirely subjective nature of this method. It is about as non-objective
as dousing rods but alluring just the same because cladists use computers! It
is science with your unconscious thumb on the scale of knowledge and your
reward the chance to name a branching point on a diagram you just drew!>

  Actually, that thumb is VERY concious. One must make decisions, after all, on
the inclusiveness or lack thereof of any data matrix, and this includes a
matrix of ANY science. ALL sciences are subjective, since all require asking
particular questions to derive particular answers, and use particular filters
and tests to remove particular improbabilities. I find that those who claim
cladistics isn't scientific because of its subjectivity haven't looked to
closely at their own fields -- or they're mathematicians deluded into thinking
that math IS science; it isn't.


Jaime A. Headden

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around