Real Science => Sarcasm?
jrg13 at PSU.EDU
Wed Apr 4 08:03:00 CDT 2001
>agree with Chris that nomenclature is not real science (whether you use the
>Phylocode or the Linnaeus system) is is merely an application of a set of
>rules by which you can label any given taxon.
John Noye's claim exemplifies my point that this distinction of
'real science' is simply a matter of definition. Nomenclature is removed
from 'real science' only because it does not conform to the particular
definition/s used by John and Christian. This is imposing a kind of
philosophical tyranny of words over the activity of science. As I said
earlier, its a common practice to define one's opponents as having
research programs that are not real science etc.
However, I would argue very
>strongly that taxonomy/systematics is real science.
The arguement is only as good as the definition employed. If one constructs
a definition of science that does not include the activity of
then taxonomy/systematics is not real science.
I would also argue that
>whichever system of nomenclature you use can result in both good or bad
>science, neither is mutually exclusive.
So a 'non-science' results in science.
>At 01:55 PM 4/3/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>>The rhetoric from cladists is definitely heating up in public forums. Here
>>on TAXACOM, below, anyone not following cladism's nonsensical philosophy of
>>science is NOT DOING REAL SCIENCE.
So here is a nice reversed application of the tyranny of definition.
>>These comments are directed largely at students, of course, since those who
>>have bought into the philosophy gimmick are locked into cladism for better
It seems to me that all science methods buy into one kind of 'philosophy
More information about the Taxacom