Russell’s paradox, and its meaning for our approaches (like cladistics)

The reason for Russell’s paradox is the prerequisites that:
1. reality has two aspects: process and pattern,
2. there are two kinds of patterns: functional and structural, whereof structural patterns are the specifics of functional patterns, and
3. starting with one of them leads to ending with a single instance of this one.

These prerequisites give rise to Russell’s paradox by meaning that starting with pattern (ie, classes), independently of which, ends in a single structural pattern (ie, class) consisting of two functional patterns (ie, classes), which is a paradox (ie, Russell’s paradox) when looking at it and an infinite recursion (eg, “the tree of life”) when searching for it.

These prerequisites thus means that reality is fundamentally either ambiguous or paradoxically contradictory – ambiguous if we use an orthogonal system of classification, like the Linnean systematics, and paradoxically contradictory if we don’t. The solution many of us comprehend as “natural”: arriving to a functional pattern consisting of two structural patterns, which cladistics also claim (ie, “the tree of life”), is simply a void (ie, not to be found). There simply isn’t any “natural” solution of these prerequisites. Instead, these prerequisites are consistent with quantum physics, which isn’t “natural” by any means.

Russell’s paradox thus falsified cladistics before it was born, instead pointing at quantum physics. Cladistics thus appears as a (very) conservative reaction against the progress of science. Its notion of “natural” is actually a quest for a simplicity that cladists can handle – pure and simple typology (like race biology). It is a reaction against science rather than a science. The academic institutions that harbour this simplistic approach ought to be ashamed, but ashaming does, unfortunately, require understanding, which cladists don’t have in excess.

Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/