Why a single, true systematics is impossible

The reason that a single, true systematics is impossible is that only single objects are unambiguous. This is not a “problem” we can solve, but a fact we can only relate to.

This fact does also compose the foundation for cladistics denial of it. Cladistics has just rotated around its own axis, denying what it started with.

Cladistics will rot from the feet and up

The Linnean system (or any other system categorizing classes) is just as unavoidable for conceptualization of reality as a knife is for a sailor or needles are for a tailor, because single objects or groups of objects at a fundamental level of any systematization (i.e., conceptualization of reality) can’t be unambiguously defined without at least two adresses: one generic and one specific. This kind of definition is just as unavoidable as the use of a surname (i.e., family name) and a given name for single persons was at the increasing use of statistics in demography. Cladistics’ retro transformation of biological systematics back to before Linnean systematics is bound to fail, because it cannot define its fundamental objects or groups of objects unambiguously. It means that it will rot from its feet and up, contrary to corruption which makes society rot from the head and down.

Cladistic hypocrisy (i.e., accepting internal contradictions) is thus the contrary to corruption (in one conceptual framework), both (therein) sorting under the category fraud. This does not mean that cladistics is fraud, but that it looks like fraud in this conceptual framework. 

The question what a phenomenon (like fraud) is has no unambiguous answer, which cladistics fraudly denies. It does not mean that all cladists are frauds (swindlers), some or all of them may simply lack ability to understand the situation, but it throws shadows of suspicion of fraud on those that appear to have ability to understand. Cladistics do appear as a conscious fraud aiming to gain personal winning (that is, generically equal to corruption). It surely has no end point (per definition), meaning that it is similar to golden pants for an egoist in science. One can get life-time economic maintenance by (a definitional) infinite nonsense discussion against one-self about the same group of objects.  If this does not qualify as a typical case of fraud (maybe The Type), then the question is what possibly can qualify as fraud.

I’m thus not claiming that cladistics is fraud, but only that it looks like fraud (actually The Type for fraud). It top-rides the fact that scientific truths are changing (maybe infinetely) by refining models by including more and more parameters, by confusing this development with its own chase for an impossible (by definition) aim (i.e., their chase for the carrots in front of their eyes). If their confusion is conscious, then it is fraud, but if it is unconscious, then it is a mental desease. The categorization of it as a desease is due to that it is claimed as an approach, instead of being given up as a fraud.  It can thus only be a fraud or a mental desease. Rot from feet and up will it, however, do in any case.