The split in biological systematics

The split in biological systematics emerging with the Nazi-founded approach called “cladistics” is extremely interesting.

Cladistics broke with Linnean systematics with the claim that “it is time to acknowledge Darwin’s theory on the origin of species” (Willi Hennig), when it actually switched the fundamental assumption for Linnean systematics from that kinds are our inventions into that kinds are real. The split was thus not about choosing another of possible alternatives, but about confronting the basic assumption for biological systematics. Willi Hennig in practice claimed that it is time to acknowledge race biology.

The result is that biological systematics today acknowledges race biology in the form of cladistics at the same time as it realizes that it can’t abandon Linnean systematics without loosing its foothold in science. It is thus a total confusion. Any intelligent person can easily understand that cladistics is paradoxically contradictory, and that cladistics is incompatible with Linnean systematics, but biological systematicians struggle to bring this whole complicated and contradictory structure further.

The split in biological systematics reveals that the discipline is  fundamentally impossible. How can it find the fusion of the two aspects of the world when no other discipline can? The rest of us just have to watch out for the racism of the aspect of cladistics.

Biological systematics offers a simple illustration of the fundamental problem for humanity

The fundamental problem for (the talking) humanity is the question whether kinds are real or our invention, that is, if we can find out whether an elk is an elk or not. This problem has given rise to a split in biological systematics between those that think kinds are real, called “cladists”, and those that don’t, the rest of the biological systematicians.

These two groups do thus not only take the opposite stand points, but moreover do not understand each other at all, since they do not even share the basic assumption, ie, whether kinds are real or our invention. Instead, an assumption for one of them is a deduction for the other and vice versa. If a systematician says that an animal is an elk (ie, defines it as an elk), cladists wonder how he knows that it is an elk.

These two groups have set up two (orthogonally opposite) systems of classifications, one that assumes that kinds aren’t real, ie, Linnean systematics, and one that assumes kinds are real, ie, the PhyloCode. So, which of these shall we choose? Well, both have their pros and cons. A pro for Linnean systematics is that there are many possible consistent classifications, whereas there for the PhyloCode isn’t any possible consistent classification. Choosing the Linnean classification thus means that we will never agree about any single of the consistent classifications, whereas choosing the PhyloCode means that we will never agree because there isn’t any consistent solution.

The common  outcome of the two (orthogonally opposite) aspects is thus that they will never agree, neither between the aspects and nor within them. This fundamental problem does thus mean that there is no way to agreement for something, but just to agreement against something. Speech thus sets the stage for an eternal fight between opinions.

Is the final truth an assumption or a deduction?

Rational thinking (ie, logic) assumes something in order to deduce something. However, an assumption may also be a deduction and vice versa. So, if there is a final truth to deduce, is it then an assumption or a deduction? According to traditional empirical science it is neither, but according to belief (eg, particle physics and cladism) it is both.

The final truth is thus either nothing or a contradiction, and a contradiction can’t be real. It means that the final truth is nothing (if it is real).

The difference between phylogenetics and cladistics

The fundamental difference between phylogenetics and cladistics is that phylogenetics is the study of evolution, whereas cladistics is evolution.

The fact that cladistics has emerged from phylogenetics is due to the problem that speech is fundamentally inconsistent so that there is no single consistent arrangement of words, but instead many consistent arrangements of words, just as there is no single perfection of biological organisms, but instead many perfections of biological organisms.

This problem means that if a person studying evolution falls into the belief that there indeed is a single (“true”) consistent arrangement of words about evolution, then this person actually falls into the same search for perfection as evolution itself is about, ie, begins to evolve in search for the (non-existing) single (“true”) consistent arrangement of words about evolution.

This trap does thus not lead to a single (“true”) consistent arrangement of words about evolution (as believed, or hoped), but instead to a continuous diversification of (“true”) consistent arrangements of words about evolution, just as the evolution of organisms continuously diversifies kinds of organisms. The search for an impossibility factually results in the opposite. And, suddenly, it reenters the situation that prevailed before Linné presented his system of classification. Rational thinking has passed the orthogonal wheel around.

Biological systematics thus ought to avoid the trap called “cladistics”. The fact that it is inconsistent (ie, actually a belief) means that it leads rationality into a vicious circle (see Henri Poincaret).

On the impossibility of an explanation of the world

The idea that science (ie, rationality) can explain the world is, unfortunately, paradoxically contradictory, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated with his paradox in 1901.

Science is merely a versatile tool to help us manage the world. It can’t explain the world.

Instead, Russell’s paradox means that every explanation of the world is paradoxically contradictory.

Our choice is thus not between what we shall believe in, but rather between whether we shall believe or not.

Science is not a belief

It is contradictory to believe in science, because there is a difference between belief and science.

Science is actually a method that can just dismiss assumptions that aren’t true (ie, falsify them, see Karl Popper), whereas belief instead seeks to verify that assumptions are true.

It means that belief in science contradicts the method of science, instead accepting the method of belief. Belief in science thus actually invalidates science (also as a belief) in the moment it emerges.

The fundamental difference between Linnean and cladistic systematicians

The fundamental difference between Linnean and cladistic systematicians (in biology) is the the latter believe in classes (ie, assume that they are real) which the former don’t. (A belief Bertrand Russell demonstrated is paradoxically contradictory already in 1901, ie, before the origin of cladistics).