Re: Dodson's article in American Paleontologist

["Jaime A. Headden" <qilongia@yahoo.com>]

Zoe Heraklides (z_heraklides@hotmail.com) wrote:

<Then I am even more confused. The commentary so far on the DML
referred directly to the article.>

  Seemingly more to what Dodson spoke of cladistics in general,
and then cladistics in general was discussed and Dodson's
position, then Ostrom's position; that thread then became out of
context of the article, and the utility of cladistics not the
point of the discussion....

<If I quote or paraphrase from his article, is that "taking
words out of context."?>

  No, it would be discussing the article. And the root of the
article. Discussion of cladistics should, in all actuality,
follow the premise and conclusions derived from research,
leaving the subjectability of a worker's opinions. I'm actually
not sure how to perform a double-blind on a cladistic endeavor.
Perhaps that should be a thread....


=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhr-gen-ti-na
  Where the Wind Comes Sweeping Down the Pampas!!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/