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

Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

No Way wrote:

While on the subject of the negative impact of cladism,

We were?

it was very sad to see what influence enthrallment with cladistics had on the design of the rennovated fossil halls at the High Temple of Cladistics, the AMNH in NYC.

I think the AMNH fossil halls are great. I hope to visit them again at the end of the year.

I fondly remeber my visits to the Halls of Saurischian & Ornithischian Dinosaurs before the renovations. What you saw there made sense. The present cladism-driven displays only confuse
& distract from the central message

Perhaps the problem was not with AMNH, but that perhaps you are too easily confused and distracted.

BTW, a lot of critics of cladistics come across much like Waldorf and Stattler on The Muppet Show: lots of barbed criticism, but not much of it actually constructive. If you don't like cladistics, you might like to invest some time in improving it, or coming up with a better method. For me, the cladistic method is a vast improvement on the way things used to be done. I can still remember those personality-driven scenarios of evolution in which different scientists would put forward their own lists of "key" characters, and then argue over which characters better reflected the true evolutionary pathway. But at the end of the day, it was all in the eye of the beholder. It was like two guys arguing over who had the sexiest prom date.