FWD>RE>FWD>True phylogenies

Dean Kelch dgkelch at UCDAVIS.EDU
Mon Jul 31 22:16:17 CDT 1995

I don't see that a parsimonious explanation is the same as parsimonious
nature at all. I often have heard cladistic theory critisized because
"evolution is not parsimonious." It isn't, but explanations can be
parsimonious in regard to the available evidence.

Dean Kelch
University of California, Davis

On Mon, 31 Jul 1995, Leonard Krishtalka wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Jul 1995, Curtis Clark wrote:
> > Krishtalka wrote:
> >  >        "Nature is parsimonious"
> >
> > I've never read William of Ockham's original works, so I don't know what
> > he said.  But as I understand the principle of parsimony, it does not
> > state that nature is parsimonious
>         Urk.  You missed the context.  I wrote that the essential basis of
> science is the assumption (hypothesis) that nature is parsimonious, which
> is merely another way of saying what Sir William said, and what you wrote,
> that "the most parsimonious solution is *most likely* to be correct" -- a
> fine paraphrasing of Occam's Razor.
>   >

More information about the Taxacom mailing list