Rejection and conquest

[Ken Kinman]

Dear All,
      I have nothing more to say about Dietes (only future data will show if
I'm right or wrong in my extrapolations).  However, what really makes me
cringe is this statement John Grehan made:   "Since Ken is a Darwinian
biogeographer (and evolutionist) it would not be possible for him to accept
the scientific value of panbiogeography since the latter is a rejection of
the former."
     Ay, there's the rub.  Once again we see a philosophical movement (or at
least some of its members) intent on rejecting and replacing that which came
before.  How many examples must history provide us before we realize that
this leads time and time again to "throwing babies out with the bathwater".
     This is really not much different than the "rejection and conquest"
mentality of strict cladism, except that the extremes of the latter have so
far succeeded to a degree that is more destructive.   I believe that it is
best for philosophies to change by evolution and cooperation, not by
revolution and aggression.
     Cladistics and panbiogeography have much too offer if they are
carefully integrated into the best of what the past has to offer as well.
Without a thoughtful eclecticism and synthesis, you just end up with
continued pendulum swinging, unnecessary confusion, and unfair ridicule of
your predecessors.  Revolutions generally only benefit a relative few to the
detriment of humanity as a whole, and it really rubs me the wrong way when I
see anyone trying to defend a wholesale program of "rejection of and
conquest over" past ideas.  Pushing the envelope is only good when it more
constructive than destructive.                 ----- Ken Kinman

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail