Re: Cladobabble

["philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net>]

<To my knowledge, there is no means of mechanically reducing
specimens to objectively meaningful characters. Character identification
is a manual process, and is therefore somewhat subjective. This does not
damn the method, because characters can be evaluated and argued on
objective grounds (i.e., is the morphology truly present, is this a
manifestation of another character which is already coded, is this
character polarized correctly). I believe many would agree that this
subjectivity does not give one the right to reject characters one does not
feel are "meaningful" a priori of analysis.

However, character
argumentation should be a process of describing and codifying
observations, not arguing over the meaning or utility of the observation.
Parsimony is a means of reconciling the distribution of observations, and
we need no other tool.>

I broke this paragraph up because the second part contradicts the first, as
I read them.
Attempting to paraphrase:
Part 1
-the analyst selects which characters are meaningful
-the selection is based on objective standards including
 --whether the form/structure is correctly observed,
 --avoidance of characters whose significance is already included
('manifestation of another character which is already coded'),
[this assumes a knowledge of the relationship between/among characters]
and
 --(the tough one to interpret) assuring the significant aspect of the
character is correctly coded to assure contrast with other samples ('is the
character polarized correctly').
[this assumes that the analyst knows what a significant difference is; for
example, say how much a bone must differ in thickness to be significantly
different from a comparable bone of another animal]
-if a character's form/structure can be observed (the only criterion given
which applies to importance judgment as opposed to coding judgment), then it
should not be rejected 'a priori of analysis' of relationship.
Part 2
-characters should be included regardless of  utility (not sure how you're
using 'meaning' in this statement) to the animal
-parsimony alone will determine relationship without regard to any other
consideration.

Remember that, from Part 1, you have eliminated characters whose
significance has already been included by the use of other characters.
Might not the most parsimonious tree be different if you had included the
other characters?
Also from Part 1, you asserted knowledge on the part of the analyst of  when
a difference becomes significant.  Isn't that an a priori decision of
non-relationship?  If I have 2 animals and one has a bone twice as thick as
another's (my hypothetical example), by the very act of coding the
distinction, have I not made this a difference which will guide the
algorithm in working out a connection between the animals?  This seems an a
priori decision about utility which operates in addition to parsimony, no?

You can see how I'm a bit confused.  Elucidation appreciated.