Posted by:
Wulf
at Thu Nov 25 12:35:09 2004 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by Wulf ]
Hi,
Are you guys talking about Richard Wells? I don't know if he is considered a professional or not but he seems to be pretty angry because I refuted his claim that molecular systematics is a theory and thus not reliable. I guess different people manage their anger differently. Wells is telling a fictional story to vent his anger apparently.
well, I primarily didn't think of Richard in this case. I guess Richard can handle different opinions, as he is more or less a "victim" of other peoples anger himself. But Richard can very well speak for his own...
I imagine too that WW is at least slightly angry because I demonstrated that his adherence to cladistic classificatory philosophy is, in the words of Ernst Mayr and Peter Ashlock, "impractical, destructive and scientifically untenable." By recognizing only holophyletic taxa and disqualifying paraphyletic taxa, WW has embraced a taxonomic practice that will result in either excessive splitting or excessive lumping. It is no accident that he has supported both of these practices. For example, he supports Utiger et al.'s excessive splitting of the genus Elaphe and at the same time he also supported Kluge's excessive lumping of Morelia and Chondropython. WW has no defense for his own taxonomic philosophy. It is certainly fashionable to be a cladist and to be part of the crusade to disqualify paraphyletic taxa. Even though following trends blindly may be what many scientists do in real life, but it is not what a scientist is expected to do if he/she is an independent thinker. There is safety in numbers being part of a flock of starlings.
Well, I'm not a professional nor am I a calist. I didn't yet read enough about cladistic to know for sure why they perhaps do not accept paraphyletic taxa, but like many other ideologies it is a matter of personal taste what you decide to choose as practical methods for analysis. There are so much concepts out there and you can just pick up the one that is best suitible for you. Nevertheless, I have learnd that a taxonomic paper is a proposal, not more or less. Accept it or refute it
The truly outstanding scientists, like Galileo, fly alone, like eagles.
I believe that good philosophers, like eagles, fly alone, not in flocks like starlings.--Galileo
Well, if one would fly alone, nobody else would accept any proposals so why do the work then? Systematics are based on general conventions. Defying those would not be the right way. Would you drive your car over a red traffic light, just because you don't want to stick to some conventions? If so, you will be a free thinking, but nevertheless dead eagle!
Cheers, Wulf ----- http://www.leiopython.de - the white-lipped python site - http://www.herpers-digest.com - herp related eBooks search -
[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Show Entire Thread ]
|