Confusion in philosophy: A comment on Williams (1992) |
| |
| Authors: | David M. Williams Robert W. Scotland Christopher J. Humphries Darrell J. Siebert |
| |
| Affiliation: | (1) Department of Botany, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD London, UK;(2) Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, OX1 3RB Oxford, UK;(3) Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, SW7 5BD London, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | Patricia Williams made a number of claims concerning the methods and practise of cladistic analysis and classification. Her argument rests upon the distinction of two kinds of hierarchy: a  divisional hierarchy depicting evolutionary descent and the Linnean hierarchy describing taxonomic groups in a classification. Williams goes on to outline five problems with cladistics that lead her to the conclusion that systematists should  eliminate cladism as a school of biological taxonomy and to replace it either with something that is philosophically coherent or to replace it with pure methodology, untainted by theory (Williams 1992, 151). Williams makes a number of points which she feels collectively add up to insurmountable problems for cladistics. We examine Williams' views concerning the two hierarchies and consider what cladists currently understand about the status of ancestors. We will demonstrate that Williams has seriously misunderstood many modern commentators on this subject and all of her five persistent problems are derivable from this misunderstanding.Some persons believe and argue, on grounds approaching faith it seems to me, that phylogeny comes from our knowledge of evolution. Others have found to their surprise, and sometimes dismay, that phylogeny comes from our knowledge of systematics.
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
