The cladistic confusion of relation with classification

In his post The Science of Systematics, Malte Ebach and David Williams presents a volubility of cladistic gibberish based on two citations of Borgmeier (1957):

1. “Systematics is a pure science of relations, unconcerned with time, space, or cause”. (Borgmeier)

and

2. “Systematics is independent of the theory of descent”. (Borgmeier)

(The rest is the cladistic gibberish).

These two citations make up the statement (and thus view that): 

3. Systematics is a pure science of relations that is independent of the theory of descent. 

This statement (and thus view) leads us non-cladists unseeked to the question: which relations, if not evolutionary relations? Surprisingly for us, the relation E & W refer to is the relation between different objects of one kind, or of more inclusive kinds that they (E & W) allcate this kind into. Their notion of relation is thus what we comprehend as kinds. They have taken the mental step to interpret a kind, for example lizard, to mean that one lizard is related on a certain level to another lizard, and that these lizards is related on another level to the reptiles we see (although they don’t “acknowledge” either lizards or reptiles).

They (i.e., E & W) thus equalize their (respective) classification(s) of reality with relation in their common claim that “systematics is a pure science of relations” (by relations thus meaning classifications), but since classifications are subjective, they have to add that relations are independent of the theory of descent”, that is of factual relations. They turn relation into classification, but since relation is factual (i.e., objective) and classification is subjective, they have to subjectivize relation by liberating it from every factual relation.

Their approach is a gibberish volubility aiming to turn objective, empirical science into subjectivity, retaining the legitimacy of objective, empirical science. It is a kind of magic of words creating the illusion that subjectivity is objectivity under the impression that relation is classification. It is an attempt to seize power by turning relation into classification. It is the revolution of classificationists, or typologists as Mays called them. Unfortunately for them, their view is pure subjectivity, and subjectivity can never be turned into objectivity. They are divorced from objectivity by the abyssal rift that their classes can never become relations. Classification will always be classification.   

Considering the concept relation, please clarify related to what. An ambiguous definition of this concept is devastating for science, since it breaks up the difference between it and its opposite subjectivity. A dim boundary between objectivity and subjectivity is only beneficiary to subjetivity. We have the obligation to mark the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in order to avoid the cladistic voluble gibberish trying to turn objectivity into subjectivity

Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct, but its practical manifestation requires  small modification.     

 

 Borgmeier, T. (1957). Basic Questions of Systematics Systematic Zoology, 6, 53-69