Logical reasoning rests on assumption and deduction. In logical reasoning, a deduction is turned into an assumption in the moment it is accepted.
It means that in the consistent system of logical reasoning, every part is both an assumption and a deduction, and thus that this system has two orthogonal sides, ie, two aspects – considering a part as either an assumption or a deduction.
This fact means that this system can’t describe anything unambiguously, because there are at least two descriptions of everything, since there are two aspects of the system.
It also means that if we think that this system can describe something unambiguously, as cladistics and particle physics do, then we enter an indefinite orthogonal carousel around the impossible description.
Our choice as rationalists is thus to either understand that we can’t reach a consistent and unambiguous description of anything or enter an indefinite search for such a description. Cladistics and particle physics have chosen the latter, ie, to enter enter an indefinite search for such a description. I have instead chosen the former, ie, to understand that we can’t reach a consistent and unambiguous description of anything.
The question is if cladists and particle physicists understand that they have made this choice, ie, if they understand what they do. I bet they don’t.