Re: CLADISTICS AND PALEONTOLOGIST(S) OF THE CENTURY

[Dinogeorge <Dinogeorge@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-04-29 03:04:12 EDT, cbrochu@fmppr.fmnh.org writes:

<< The tradeoff is between divorcing yourself from "gut feelings" and avoiding
 the authoritarianism that characterized earlier phylogenetic methods.  I am
 not talking about strong feelings, as much as the fact that relationships
 now must be supported by explicit data - not just someone's say-so.
 
 As for the GIGO criticism - I find it a complement that someone can
 actually make that accusation about my work (not that it's valid or
 anything).  Fifty years ago, one would simply weigh the reputations of
 competing authors against each other.  Whatever garbage was in the analysis
 could never be localized.  Now, we can actually look inside the data set
 itself - surely a better way of doing things.  If there's garbage there,
 it's the explicit nature of modern phylogenetics that allows us to find it.
  >>

Sorry, but I still have the "gut feeling" that a lot of garbage does >not< get
detected in phylogenetic analysis. Of dinosaurs, anyway.