Science is doomed to an eternal update, because the truth can not be accessed. It will be truth 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and so on indefinitely. A belief in science (like cladistics) is thus just as stupid as all other beliefs are. Science is not a philosophy, but a practical way to handle reality. Science does not compete with beliefs such as Christianity and Islam, but does just seek models that can imitate reality. Science is thus neither measuring the temperature outside nor seeking a belief (like cladistics and particle physics), but a method to find models that can imitate reality. If this means that we can model reality but not understand it, like quantum mechanics, then, so be it. Science deals with problems as they come without beliefs. Science is actually the opposite to belief.
This is why cladistics and particle physics is so devastating for science. Maintaining the notion that science can function as a belief is practical suicide of science. I thus want to make clear that science is just a practical way to handle reality, nothing more and nothing less.
The cladistic belief in a single tree of life is just as irrational as all other beliefs (in Gods and such things) are. If there indeed would have been such things, then our reality would not have been.
The problem with Gods is that if they created the world, then who created them. The problem with a single truth is its incompatibility with a changing reality. If there indeed had been a single truth, then why does the world not find peace in this truth? No, the truth is that reality is like a campfire around which we gather to express our opinions about it. Some sit to the right and some to the left, but no one can sit in the middle of it.
Instead, cladistics is nothing but good old race biology (inherited from the Nazi biologist Willi Hennig)..
If we could understand reality, then context would not be distinct from content, but would instead fuse with content. Then, understanding would erase reality.
Luckily, we can’t understand reality.
It is totally impossible to understand reality, because an understanding can only be reached by two entrances: to assume either that classes are real or that they aren’t real, whereof the former ends in paradoxical contradiction and the latter ends in ambiguity, both of which, actually, is the same place – the ultimate interface between the orthogonal assumptions.
All attempts to understand reality will thus end in this place – the ultimate interface between the orthogonal assumptions. But, we can still understand reality mathematically by quantum mechanics. The question is if the world will allow this fundamentally correct understanding or override it with fake understandings. We’ll get what we deserve..
The fundamental problem for rationality in discussing reality is that its tool “classes” is inconsistent.
This problem (fact) means that it does not matter that rationality is logically consistent, when there actually are two orthogonal entrances (ie, assumptions) to it: assuming that classes are real or assuming that classes are human inventions, whereof the former ultimately leads to paradoxical contradiction and the latter ultimately leads to ambiguity. Rationality will ultimately end up in either paradoxical contradiction or ambiguity – an interface also known as Russell’s paradox.
This problem (fact) caused the downfall of the ancient Greek rationalist approach and does also create problems for today’s rationalist approach (presently being mitigated by the insane rationalist invention “Higgs particle” and the outrageous claim of having found it).
Today, we’re however better equipped to avoid a downfall of the rationalist approach by having solved the mathematics of reality. We can now count on reality in terms of quantum mechanics, although we can’t understand what reality is. It means that we can continue expanding our understanding of reality blind-folded (ie, not understanding what it is). If this possibility suffices to avoid a downfall of rationalism remains to be seen, but if not, I bet it’ll be back in about 2000 years or so (if humanity still exists by then).
When Carl von Linné met the suggestion that the whole biodiversity may have originated by an evolutionary “origin of species” from a single ancestral species, he replied: no, not of species, but possibly of genera.
Why is that? What thinking led him to this reply? Well, the reason is that things, also like abstract “species”, in the evolutionary model have relationships, which the Linnean system illustrates with abstract “genera”, “families”, “classes” and so on, and that things in the evolutionary model thus ultimately descend from a single relationship, whereas relationships instead ultimately descend from a single thing, and Linné simply concluded that if there indeed is an ultimate ancestor to the biodiversity, then it must be a thing (ie, a “species”), and that the descendants then must be relationships (ultimately “genera”). Linné was simply consistent in his thinking, contrary to the proponents of the model of an “origin of species from a single species”. He realized immediately that this model is inconsistent.
So, what does it mean that the evolutionary model is inconsistent? Well, it means that there is no way to put facts together to produce a consistent (ie, lacking contradictions) such “species tree”. The idea that there is such a way, today called “cladistics”, is simply wrong. It is actually as wrong as something can be – an unbeatable record of failure. But, a success story for cladists… The worst problem with this idea is that it leads back into the race biology of the early 20th century (conveyed from then to now by the Nazi biologist Willi Hennig).
The problem with conceptualization (ie, words and logical consistency) is that they lead to either ambiguity or (paradoxical) contradiction (depending on what one assumes).
This problem may lead to an assumption that conceptualization stands in the way for understanding reality, but nothing could be more wrong. Fact is instead that reality itself cannot find itself because it can only be either ambiguous or (paradoxically) contradictory.
Reality itself does thus have the same problem as we have with it.