Science and Organic Evolution

[john Grehan]

At 02:21 PM 11/14/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>John,
>     I certainly would not characterize panbiogeography (or your particular
>approach to it) as either extreme or abusive.

I was not intending to suggest such a criticism. My point was that any
labelling of a scientific position as 'extreme' is simply a political or
social point of view and a rhetorical device. One may disagree with
particular tenets or outcomes (as Ken does with what he calls strict
cladism), but whether either one or both opposing positions is 'extreme' or
'abuse' or not seems to me to be irrelevant to the scientific debate. In
some ways such labels are more like distractions. (Actually I think
panbiogeography may well be extreme. It is certainly not moderate with
respect to its deconstruction of Darwinism.

>On the contrary, I have
>expressed my belief that such an approach has a lot of potential, even
>though I criticize certain aspects of it (like not putting Antarctica on
>your maps).

Antarctica is on the maps when there is a locality record present. It is
also can be on the map if one is tracking the geography of an absence.

>     As for systematics, I label as "extreme" the strict cladism which
>forbids any recognition of formal paraphyletic taxa.  This is especially
>true when strict cladists punish those who do formally recognize
>paraphyletic taxa, and this comes in various forms affecting the ability to
>publish, to get funding, or even employment opportunities.  I'm not
>suggesting that all strict cladists resort to such methodological
>intimidation, but it certainly empowers those who do.
>     And as for nature, it simply "is what it is", and therefore cannot be
>unreasonable.  It is its own "middle ground", and my view is that we can
>best study nature with middle ground approaches that offer a lot of choice
>and latitude.

If nature cannot be unreasonable then it certainly cannot have a 'middle
ground'. In my opinion (open to contestation) here is that there is no
empirical basis for invoking any kind of 'middle ground' in nature let
alone one that conforms to an individuals assertion of what that middle
ground is (i.e. Ken's in this case).

>Labelling paraphyly as unreal or unnatural restricts our
>choices of approach, and Zoology in particularly is suffering the
>consequences of various attempts to impose such restrictions (as I have
>often pointed out in this and other venues).

I can see this view as dealing with scientific merits, but whether it is
Ken who is being 'unreasonable' in his demand for a 'middle ground' or
anyone else who is unreasonable for not conforming to that political ground
is something that I would not see as being germane to the scientific
questions. Is Ken the extremist or the 'strict' cladists. It all seems no
more than a matter of personal philosophy.

John Grehan

>            ----  Ken Kinman
>
>*****************************************
>John Grehan wrote:
>>I don't know enough about systematics to know whether I am one of those
>>unreasonable strict cladists, but when it comes to panbiogeography I
>>suppose I will remain in the camp defined by Ken and others as being
>>extremist because I will not conform to the demands of orthodox political
>>correctness for my choices in science. If the panbiogeographic position is
>>'right' then perhaps it will just prove that 'nature' (universe or
>>whatever) knows no 'middle ground' and is in essence unreasonable and
>>intemperate too.
>>
>>John Grehan
>>
>>John Grehan
>>Director of Science and Collections
>>Buffalo Museum of Science
>>1020 Humboldt Parkway
>>Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

John Grehan
Director of Science and Collections
Buffalo Museum of Science
1020 Humboldt Parkway
Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
Voice 716-896-5200 x372
Fax 716-897-6723
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org