tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post4228605327255357183..comments2023-10-28T01:53:23.721-07:00Comments on Systematics and Biogeography: Buddah: Look at the moon, not my finger!Malte C. Ebachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11901602320985626811noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post-67737318254054267702013-03-23T21:10:47.096-07:002013-03-23T21:10:47.096-07:00Looking at the moon is astronomy. Looking at the ...Looking at the moon is astronomy. Looking at the finger is science. <br /> mightythornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post-68277919569145792132007-12-04T23:42:00.000-08:002007-12-04T23:42:00.000-08:00I reject the idea that I am simply looking for "go...I reject the idea that I am simply looking for "good" vs. "bad" methods. The objective is to come and close as possible to reconstructing the phylogeny. "Good" and "bad" are to be interpreted in that light. Ebach and Williams consider a tree reconstructed by parsimony from a sequence alignment to be an "artificial classification" and their own preferred method to make a "natural classification". But they give no argument as to why the former will be inaccurate, and they do not explain their method, at least not in a way that allows me to understand its properties. If they will use a finger to point to the moon, I will happily look at it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post-43213967713740943922007-12-04T02:10:00.000-08:002007-12-04T02:10:00.000-08:00It is obvious that Felsenstein is not going to con...It is obvious that Felsenstein is not going to concede on the matter of classification. For him it is about values such as "good" and "bad" and competition, such as the "best method" versus the "worst method". It is sad that systematics and biogeography have been degraded to choosing "best" numerical methods when something far greater is at stake - the disappearance of natural classification.<BR/><BR/>This whole debate, for us at least, has been about the confusion between artificial and natural classifications. Felsenstein, a believer in the "it-doesn't-matter-very-much-school" of classification seems oblivious to the role classification plays in systematics. Inferring phylogenies, namely interpreting classifications, is a practice that stems back to Haeckel and before. However, as these naturalists knew, without classifications there will be no phylogenies to infer. We suggest that Felsenstein acquaint himself with the systematic and biogeographical literature of the past. We found it a rewarding experience.<BR/><BR/>Note: The title "Look at the moon, not my finger" refers to Buddah 'pointing the way' towards freeing oneself from suffering - the moon representing that goal. We are refering to those that have for centuries been pointing the way towards freeing ourselves from inference, teleology and mechanical explanations - the moon is, in this sense, referring to natural classification. It is not a crime to generate inferences and artificial classifications, but it is erroneous and misguided to assume that inferences and artificial classifications are somehow natural methods.Malte C. Ebachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901602320985626811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post-46453916055738318882007-12-03T21:53:00.000-08:002007-12-03T21:53:00.000-08:00THE SOUND OF ONE FINGER FLAPPING: LUNACY OR NO?I t...THE SOUND OF ONE FINGER FLAPPING: LUNACY OR NO?<BR/><BR/>I think that Ebach and Williams have answered "yes" but in a longer way. Yes, they are saying, the tree is in effect a classification, and yes, it is "phenetic", and yes that means it is not a good way to go. So my guess was correct. I am curious what method they propose that will do a better job. And how they're going to persuade everybody else that those people are all being pheneticists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com