To: PatrickHenry; Alamo-Girl; tortoise
There's another fallacy I've discovered but I can't find a reference to it; someone should have seen it before. I would like to call it the "Fallacy of the Clade" or "Cladistic Fallacy" because "Taxonomic Fallacy" is already taken.
This fallacy consists in assuming that "being a member of a group" is a property of an individual rather than a property of the classification method. It's not the same as the "Fallacy of Composition" or "Fallacy of Division." It's peculiar to cladistic analysis.
1,572 posted on
02/02/2005 12:49:44 PM PST by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Doctor Stochastic
Perhaps it is in here: Cladistics (but I wouldn't which one you are recalling)
To: Doctor Stochastic
This fallacy consists in assuming that "being a member of a group" is a property of an individual rather than a property of the classification method. It's not the same as the "Fallacy of Composition" or "Fallacy of Division." It's peculiar to cladistic analysis. It seems to involve, to some degree, the notion that the "group" is itself an entity with characteristics.
1,579 posted on
02/02/2005 12:59:29 PM PST by
PatrickHenry
(<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson