Encroachment and Prohibition (Science and Evolution)

[john grehan]

Ken wrote:
>John,
>     What I see as "germane" is that strict cladists are increasingly
>encroaching on the freedom of traditional eclecticists to pursue science in
>their own way.

If you are saying that cladists are preventing non-cladistic methods from
publication I would agree that it is a problematic situation. I still see a
lot of phenetic studies being published (including phenetic molecular
studies dressed up in cladistic terminology) so it would not seem that they
are entirely exclusive. Perhaps you could cite some publication examples
that you have in mind.

>And the most vocal and extreme strict cladists make little
>effort to hide their contempt for those who disagree with them, sometimes
>commenting that they are just waiting for us "to die off".

This kind of attitude is not confined to whether one is a vocal or extreme
cladist.

>  The insistence of strict cladists that ALL paraphyletic
>groups must be done away with is unreasonable and one-sided.

My view is that whether it is 'ureasonable' or 'one-sided' is less the
issue than whether it is a more effective (predictive) approach to the
structure of biological relationships. Panbiogeography is also unreasonable
and one-sided in not accepting centers of origin and means of dispersal as
an element of biogeographic analysis.

>Arguments that paraphyly is "unnatural" are about as convincing as
>religious groups arguing
>that dancing is a sin.

Its convincing to some and not to others.

>     Strict cladism is seen by many as uncompromising, single-minded, and
>sometimes as being like an abusive spouse whose aggression just gets worse
>and worse over time.

Strict cladism may be uncompromising, but that is not necessarily a
scientific flaw.

>Like abused spouses, we are beginning to realize that
>we are not alone and increasingly banding together to fight back.

That's the normal practice of scientific discourse - at least traditional
'male' oriented discourse (lots of 'fighting' - great stuff). Perhaps the
cover page of Hull's book on science as a process is by no means coincidental.

>P.S.  While I agree that paraphyly has been overused in the past (and worse
>yet, it was usually inexplicit and often sloppy), that is no grounds for
>prohibiting it.

There are grounds if one takes a purely cladistic view of phylogeny.

>Just as Prohibition (of alcohol) in the U.S. was a bad
>idea, the attempted Prohibition of Paraphyly in the latter quarter of the
>20th Century will be seen as an extreme measure that ended up doing more
>harm than good.

In which case you will be vindicated.

John Grehan