Biology and Philosophy 21 (3):309-351 (2006)
|Abstract||The question of whether or not to partition data for the purposes of inferring phylogenetic hypotheses remains controversial. Opinions have been especially divided since Kluge's (1989, Systematic Zoology 38, 7–25) claim that data partitioning violates the requirement of total evidence (RTE). Unfortunately, advocacy for or against the RTE has not been based on accurate portrayals of the requirement. The RTE is a basic maxim for non-deductive inference, stipulating that evidence must be considered if it has relevance to an inference. Evidence is relevant if it has a positive or negative effect on a given conclusion. In the case of ℈partitioned’ phylogenetic inferences, the RTE is violated, and the basis for rational belief in any conclusion is compromised, unless it is shown that the partitions are evidentially irrelevant to one another. The goal of phylogenetic systematics is to hypothesize past causal conditions to account for observed shared similarities among two or more species. Such inferences are non-deductive, necessitating consideration of the RTE. Some phylogeneticists claim the parsimony criterion as justification for the RTE. There is no relation between the two – parsimony is a relation between a hypothesis and causal question(s). Parsimony does not dictate the content of premises prior to an inference. ℈Taxonomic congruence,’ ℈supertrees,’ and ℈conditional combination’ methods violate the RTE. Taxonomic congruence and supertree methods also fail to achieve the intended goal of phylogenetic inference, such that ℈consensus trees’ and ℈supertrees’ lack an empirical basis. ℈Conditional combination’ is problematic because hypotheses derived from partitioned data cannot be compared – a causal hypothesis inferred to account for a set of effects only has relevance to those effects, not any comparative relevance to other causal hypotheses. A similar problem arises in the comparisons of hypotheses derived from different causal theories.|
|Keywords||Abductive inference Cladistics Deduction Phylogenetics Total evidence|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Bengt Autzen (2011). Constraining Prior Probabilities of Phylogenetic Trees. Biology and Philosophy 26 (4):567-581.
E. Kurt Lienau & Rob DeSalle (forthcoming). Evidence, Content and Corroboration and the Tree of Life. Acta Biotheoretica.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz (forthcoming). Reflections on Systematics and Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Acta Biotheoretica.
Richard Richards (2003). Character Individuation in Phylogenetic Inference. Philosophy of Science 70 (2):264-279.
Nico M. Franz (2005). Outline of an Explanatory Account of Cladistic Practice. Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):489-515.
Olivier Rieppel & Maureen Kearney (2007). The Poverty of Taxonomic Characters. Biology and Philosophy 22 (1):95-113.
Kirk Fitzhugh (forthcoming). Species as Explanatory Hypotheses: Refinements and Implications. Acta Biotheoretica.
M. Kotzen (2012). Selection Biases in Likelihood Arguments. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63 (4):825-839.
Olivier Rieppel (2009). 'Total Evidence' in Phylogenetic Systematics. Biology and Philosophy 24 (5):607-622.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #60,159 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,645 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?