Roffé, A. , Ginnobili, S. & Blanco, D. (2018). Theoricity, observation and homology: a response to Pearson.
Roffé, A. , Ginnobili, S. & Blanco, D. (2018). Theoricity, observation and homology: a response to Pearson. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 40: 43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-018-0210-5. [ Link ] Abstract: An interesting metatheoretical controversy took place during the 1980’s and 1990’s between pattern and phylogenetic cladists. What was always at stake in the discussion was not how work in systematics should be carried out, but rather how this practice should be metatheoretically interpreted. In this article, we criticize Pearson’s account of the metatheoretical factors at play in this discussion. Following him, we focus on the issue of circularity, and on the role that phylogenetic hypotheses play in the determination of “primary homologies”. Pearson argues that the recognition of primary homologies cannot be achieved without recourse to previous phylogenetic knowledge, and that to claim otherwise is to state that primary homologies are observable. To show why ...