Cladistics and particle physics are examples of the ancient approach that presumes that classes are real (ie, can be found), traditionally called realism, but which more correctly ought to be called class realism, on the opposite to the ancient approach that presumes that classes are not real but abstract (ie, can’t be found but are our invention), called nominalism.
Cladistics and particle physics are, however, a little late, since Bertrand Russell falsified class realism already in 1901 by demonstrating that it ultimately leads to paradox (by Russell’s paradox) . This fact hasn’t, however, made class realists, like cladists and particle physicists, convert into nominalism, but has instead passed in silence while class realists instead have proceeded into claiming that paradoxes, like The True Tree of Life and Higgs particle, are not abstract, but real (ie, can be found).
However, the problem with finding paradoxes, even if they are considered real, is that they can’t be found, since they are just orthogonal circles of reasoning. They are not things as we know things, but just relations pointing at each other in a 3-dimensional circle.
The question now is thus how we can clarify that class realists, like cladists and particle physicists, are wrong (ie, have got matters up-side-down). If they can’t even understand Russell’s paradox, ie, that it is a paradox they’re looking for, then how on earth can they ever understand the vanity of looking for a paradox. If they don’t even see the problem, then how on earth can we explain that their solution of this problem is vain?
You tell me. I don’t have the answer.