Objectivity vs subjectivity in phylogenetic systematics: the battle between Linnean systematics (i.e., evolutionary taxonomy) and cladistics

The ancient controverse between the contradictory paradigms of objectivity and subjectivity clashed in biological systematics in the 1970-ies, over the matter of classification of phylogenies (i.e., dichotomously branching processes).

Basically, the disagreement concerned whether a phylogeny is a single or several objects.  Objectivity axiomatically viewed them as several objects,whereas subjectivity, in line with its confusion of object with infinite class (i.e., object with typological definition), excluding (denying) finite class, claimed that both single objects and phylogenies are both single objects and infinite classes, and thus definitely not several objects (i.e., finite classes). From an objectivists’ position, subjectivists did thus claim an impossibility and deny an axiomatic truth, whereas from a subjectivist position, objectivists’ did not see the obvious (i.e., that phylogenies as an infinite class (today called clade) include what they call “natural” groups).

Subjectivity, led by Steve Farris and Gareth Nelson, won the battle over objectivity, thus tilting biological systematics from being an objective (empirical) science into a subjective belief (in clades) in opposition to objective (empirical) science. It was a revolution in two aspects, both by revolving back to an abandonded pre-scientific stage first formulated by the ancient Greek Parmenides about 2,400 years ago, and by revolting against empirical science in empirical scientific institutions, like a cancer tumor in the body of objective (empirical) science.

This is today’s situation in biological systematics. Subjectivity rules and spreads its approach in objective scientific institutions that it is in opposition to. However, typically for subjectivity, it is already beginning to diversify into the infinite number of different views that the term subjectivity collects. It can easily be agreed on in general (for example in the form of clades), but not possibly in specific (per definition). Ínstead, subjectivists are doomed to an eternal chase for the carrots in front of their eyes. Biological systematics appears to offer them the (so far) respectable playing ground that they always chase (like their carrots).

The paradigm battle between subjectivity (i.e., cladistics) and objectivity (i.e., empirical science)

The battle between cladistics and evolutionary taxonomys is actually a paradigm battle between subjectivity and objectivity, subjectivity assuming as an axiom that kinds exist whereas objectivity assuming as an axiom that objects exist. Both exclude each other in all possible ways. Objectivists held the power in biological systematics after Linné, but subjectivists defeated them (in this discipline) after Hennig. 

The main difference between them is that subjectivity classifies for classification’s sake, whereas objectivity classifies to produce process models. They clash in phylogenetic systematics, because the representation of the process is a pattern (i.e., a classification). The pivotal point resides in how to comprehend monophyly. Subjectivity can’t see any difference between mono- and holophyly, that is, one or several in a row, whereas objectivity sees a clear difference between one and several. Subjectivity focuses on type, whereas objectivity focuses on numbers.

It means that subjectivity can’t reach consistency, because type has no zero. This fact means that subjectivity is doomed to an indefinite chase for the zero (i.e., the carrot in front of the donkey’s eyes, or the treasure at the foot of the rainbow). It will simply wander between different alternatives forever per definition.

Objectivity (having a zero) will, however, close up on reality by decreasing the difference between process models and reality indefinately. Never will it, however, reach a process model that allows the subjective approach. The difference between it and subjectivity is an insurmountable aisle.

Subjectivity can thus never come closer to being correct than “very nearly” (as Thorwald expressed it on Wikipedia’s discussion page for the concept clade). The battle between it and objectivity in biological systematics is hopefully subjectivity’s last attempt to escape the inescapeable fact that it’s doomed to be wrong. The problem is that the axiom it rests on simply is wrong.

The paradigm battle between subjectivity (i.e., cladistics) and objectivity (i.e., empirical science) is thus lost by subjectivity.