Re: cladistics as (non) science

[Nick Longrich <longrich@alumni.princeton.edu>]

Title: Re: cladistics as (non) science

>      A response to
> philidor11: Please, do not stop adding to the discussions
> re:cladistics and scientific "discourse" often being, in the
> main, a paradigm of social activities. I refer you, specificially, to
> the work of: Donna Haraway, Evelyn Fox Keller, Brian Noble, among
> others. My own methodology, in my in-progress book Alfred Russel
> Wallace's KING KONG, is to note that paleontology, since Roy
> Chapman Andrews's Indiana Jonesian escapes, has been relatively
> masculinist.

        RELATIVELY macho? Half the "discoveries" in dinosaur paleontology can be summed up as "New Giant Dinosaur Proves Paleontologist Has Largest Penis". As much as I enjoy joining the guys around the campfire for a beer and a session of amicable masculine grunting (real men don't speak- they grunt), sometimes I feel sorry for the women in this field- it can't be easy being a woman in what is, a lot of the time, a great big pissing contest.

> The early
> history of our "field" (I have devoted my life since 1954 to
> studying dinosaurs, so "field" may not be an adequate
> adjective...adverb?) was intertwined with
> colonialist/racialist/gendered expansions: the virulent racialism of
> H.F. Osborn and E.D. Cope (in "ornithology", it was Robert
> Shufeldt who came closest to being a proto-nazi) has been replaced by
> gendered perspectives! ! . Paleontology is a social construct,
> regardless of the protestations of some, like W.J. Mitchell, who would
> conflate societal icons with scientific "objects". I agree
> with Mr Mitchell that dinosaurs-qua-dinosaurs are intersections of
> "culture"/"nature" determinants, but, often, we
> need to remember that "woman" does not equal
> "gender", and that "woman" has biological and
> social meanings, i.e., "female". Females are not the only
> zoological taxa to be marked by "gender"; as Donna Haraway
> has written, "gender is a concept developed to contest the
> naturalization of sex". Thus, we should be concerned with women
> in paleontology, the science of gender, and gender in paleontology (I
> am here speaking of developmental paleo/biology). Thus we have a
> nexus: <paleontology + men + dinosaurs + Horrorwood +
> spectacle>. And yet. Does this mean adequate funding for cladistic
> analyses? Are there gender biases (heterosexist or homosexist) in
> cladistics itself? Does the spectaclization of d! ! inosaur studies
> mean there is money available for the underrated aspects of
> nondinosaur paleontology? How many paleontologists consider, e.g., the
> pioneering research of Londa Schiebinger? Or: the K/T event was more
> than what many realize: a conflagration impacting all planetary taxa,
> viz. breeding biologies etc. were altered for surviving
> dinosaurs.

"a conflagration impacting all planetary taxa" = "they all got blowed up- real good". (planetary taxa as opposed to what- extraterrestrial taxa?)

------------------

re: philidor11's arguments about cladistics and science...

Before everyone jumps reflexively to the defense of cladistics- now that I think about it (this taking a while since it's early for me and I've only had one cup of coffee) that's a damn good question. Is this really science? Someone out there with a bit more mathematical background than me- isn't it possible to demonstrate with a mathematical proof and total certainty that a given tree generates the minimum number of transitions, given a certain data set and set of assumptions? In other words, wouldn't shortest tree be a matter of deductive knowledge (logical/mathematical realm reached via the armchair) rather than inductive (scientific realm examined through real world observations). Sorry if that's what you're arguing already.

        Man, as one of those lowly "not-even-science" functional guys, I'd love to be able spring a "cladistics isn't science" argument on the hardcore cladists.