Double Yikes!! Avoiding bias.

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

Rob,
    Double Yikes!!  I've never advocated changing (or simplifying) 
"phylogenies" to make them more convenient or useful.  Unfortunately, 
traditional eclectic classifications (which do not explicitly store 
phylogenetic "sister group" information) do sacrifice too much data and 
information, and that is why I don't advocate them either.  I don't like 
either extreme.
    I use a system that attempts to get rid of the side-effects of both 
traditional and purely phylogenetic classifications (and keeps what is 
useful about each).  The point my system makes is that there is more than 
one way to store phylogenetic information in a classification.  And much of 
the confusing complexity (and uncertainty) is stored in a modifiable code, 
which is preferable to prematurely storing it in the formal nomenclature 
(which generates man-made, unnecessary confusion and complexity).  Therefore 
non-systematists can ignore the coding and have a relatively stable, 
convenient classification, while pure phylogenetic classifications force 
everyone to navigate the complexities unnecessarily.
     As I have said before, the cladistic attempt to eliminate human "bias" 
not only comes at far too high a price, but in practice it usually ends up 
just substituting cladistic "biases" and arbitrariness in the place of 
traditional "biases" and arbitrariness.  In my opinion, we can only minimize 
bias by a middle ground approach (which also avoids the pitfalls of both 
traditional eclectic and purely phylogenetic approaches).
                 -------Ken Kinman
*******************************************************
Rob wrote:
> Yikes. I didn't expect to respond to one of these comments, but none the 
> less, here I go.
> Phylogenies aren't created to suit people. We shouldn't say, "I don't like 
> it, so we should change it to suit us." The idea behind cladistics is to 
> have a classification (theoretically) free of bias. So, if we want 
> phylogenies to "adapt to our needs as much as possible," that would not be 
> showing a truer picture of what is going on. I've heard that cladistics 
> causes unneeded confusion and what not. Well, guess what. Life is 
> confusing, complex, and more intertwined than we will be able to unravel in 
> 100 generations. But why not try to understand. With a phylogenetic 
> classification, you (theoretically) get a clearer picture of what is going 
> on in nature without human bias. We should try to make things easy on 
> ourselves, true, but not at the expense of knowledge, data and truth. We 
> should try to understand nature as it is, not as it would be most 
> convenient for us.
> Peace,
> Rob
>
> Student of Geology
> Northern Arizona University
> P.O. Box 20840
> Flagstaff, Az. 86011
> AIM: TarryAGoat
> "A _Coelophysis_ with feathers?"
>
> __________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com