[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,
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