How cladism solved the problem that reality is distinct from abstraction

The fact that reality is distinct from our abstractions of it (i.e., our models of reality) means that an unambiguous classification of reality is impossible. The reason is that classification has to catch both process and pattern, and that these two phenomena are orthogonal (i.e., diametrical). There is thus no way of catching reality in an unambiguous classification.

Now, cladism solved this “problem”  by claiming that an unambiguous classification of reality on the contrary is possible (using the class clade), and denying the fact that it isn’t. It thus solved an insolvable “problem” (i.e., got rid of a fact) by claiming that the opposite is a fact and denying that it is a fact. It thus “claimed away” the fact and, to ultimately bury it, also denied it.

This solution is analogous to claiming that the speed of light is relative, and denying that time is relative. It turns an orthogonal relation up-side-down. In this case, however, it is empirically wrong (i.e., falsified by facts). The speed of light is not relative, but absolute, and time is relative. Cladism is thus wrong (i.e., falsified by facts). An unambiguous classification of reality is not possible. It doesn’t matter  how much we try, an unambiguous classification of reality is not possible per definition. 

Cladism’s solution of this unsolvable problem has led lots of people into the insensible position that is traditionally called subjectivity. It means that they believe they talk about the same phenomenon (-a), although they will never reach a consensus about what it is.  They acknowledge the same word (i.e., clade), but will never reach consensus about clades, for the simple reason that clade is an  inconsistent concept and that there thus are several different, incompatible clades. Clade is a subjective and not objective concept. It is different for different people.

Cladism thus solved the problem that reality is distinct from abstraction by claiming that abstraction is the same as reality, and denying that reality is distinct from abstraction. Although this solved the problem for cladists, it didn’t for others. Reality still appears to be as distinct from abstraction as it always have been, despite cladism’s double denial of this distinction. Only the heads of cladists appears to have been screwed, to the extent that they weren’t from from the beginning. Now, they’re trying to force biological systematics into the screwed Wonderland they inhabit.

If there is one thing I regret in my life, then it is taking a PhD in biological systematics. I didn’t realize that biological systematists are the most hostile people to natural science among all natural sciences. A majority of them appears to hate Karl Popper. My aim was not to enter a war with believers, but to understand evolution. My present aim is, however, to kick cladism out of the realm of science. I’m not against cladism, but against calling it science. It is actually the least science of all possible approaches to reality, including all religions. It is the most possible erroneous approach. It is as wrong as anything possibly can be. It is wrong-wrong.  I am prepared to discuss cladism with any cladist (like Steve Farris, Gareth Nelson, Mark Siddall, Per Sundberg, Mikael Härlin, Kevin deQuieroz, Jim Carpenter, and the latest stars Malte Ebach and Gareth Nelson’s disciple John Wilkins) anytime, but they do not dare to discuss it with me, because they know that I’m right. Cladism is a difficult conceptual confusion to get rid of, but I try to the best I can.