AN EXPLORATION OF THE THREE MAJOR SCHOOLS OF TAXONOMY USING SCIENCE FICTION EXAMPLES A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Masters of Arts By Jessica Gentry Read December, 2009 Thesis written by Jessica Gentry Read B.A., Washington and Jefferson College, 1998 M.A., Kent State University, 2009 Approved by ________Deborah Barnbaum___________, Advisor ________David W. Odell-Scott_________, Chair, Department of Philosophy _______Timothy Moerland____________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………..iv Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1 Chapter 1. Definitions and Explanations of Terms………………………………...4 Definition of Taxonomy and Related Terms………………………4 Virtues of a School of Taxonomy………………………………...10 Definition of Species……………………………………………...17 Definition of Character……………………………………………30 Definition of Grouping and Ranking……………………………...37 2. Evolutionary Taxonomy……………………………………………….39 Goals and Tenets of Evolutionary Taxonomy…………………….40 3. Cladism………………………………………………………………...54 Goals and Tenets of Cladism……………………………………...54 Advantages and Disadvantages of Cladism……………………….71 4. Pheneticism…………………………………………………………….73 Goals and Tenets of Pheneticism………………………………….74 Pheneticism and Aristotle………………………………………….81 Advantages and Disadvantages of Pheneticism…………………....84 5. Testing the Schools of Taxonomy Using Science Fiction……………....90 Science Fiction and its Purpose…………………………………….92 Eugenically Developed Humans…………………………………..100 Asexually Developed Humans…………………………………….108 “Built” Humans……………………………………………………113 “Half” Humans…………………………………………………….130 Final Conclusions………………………………………………….135 Works Cited………………………………………………………………………..140 Illustration A……………………………………………………………………….147 Illustration B……………………………………………………………………….148 iii Acknowledgments Last year I was able to present a part of this thesis to the philosophy club at my undergraduate alma mater, Washington and Jefferson College. I am thankful for the opportunity to practice and for the welcome back despite being unknown to the completely new department from when I was last a student. But most of all, upon lamenting on my difficulty in finishing, all members related similar experiences. While I do not recommend anyone take my long road more than peppered with breaks and hiatuses, I at least feel confident that my struggles here is not a sign to end my philosophical endeavors. A great deal of gratitude is owed and offered to those who helped me while a student at Kent State. In general, the department provides a gold standard in leading class discussion and exciting students about philosophy. I treasure that I have been a part of that. Specifically, I must start with endless gratitude for my advisor, Dr. Barnbaum. Your patience and empathy is endless. You criticism has always been constructive, your aid extensive and your interest is genuine. I can honestly say I could not have completed this without you. Many thanks go to the rest of the philosophy department at Kent State and especially the other members of my Thesis Advisory Group. You comments, questions and ideas are always helpful. iv Special thanks for Dr. Williams for the best of advice: Just do it. I would have finished years ago if I took that excellent advice to heart. And although years have passed and I have lost contact with nearly all of them, I still owe a debt of gratitude to my fellow graduate students. In particular, I want to thank Kevin Fink for being my “go-to guy” on realism and anti-realism and whether or when it may apply to my work. And I want to thank Dave Mast for being my kindred spirit in the pursuit of classifying, identifying, and naming all things that can stand it – everything in its place. I want to thank Jody Price for his unabashed commentary on this thesis and just about everything else. Finally, I want to thank Steve Carr for being the incredibly supportive person that he is. I would have never made it to Kent without the aid and advice of Dr. David Schrader. And I may have never gotten as enthralled about philosophy without W&J’s own embodiment of Socrates, Dr. Lloyd Mitchell. Finally, all my love and thank to my husband Michael, who kept the farm going while I was in school, and encouraged and supported me throughout. v Introduction When informing others on the topic of my thesis, I got many of the same responses of the general form, “What does that have to do with philosophy?” I found this to be an odd response. As a philosopher, I found much of my studies and works akin to the work of a biological taxonomist. Philosophy is no stranger to classification. While the biologist categorizes, names, and identifies kinds of life, many philosophers categorize, name and identify numerous kinds of entities and concepts, for example speech acts or ethical theories. Science fiction is an ideal bridge between biology and philosophy. Science fiction is a speculative art. Its speculation is often in the form of expanding current scientific theory and technology, including biology. The benefit of a philosopher, as opposed to a biologist, exploring the nature of biological taxonomy is as with any outsider coming to mediate among those involved. I will bring a different point of view and background to the issues at hand, hopefully lacking biases that can develop from being a biologist. Problems in taxonomy may also be problems that are dealt in philosophy, which may offer a new approach. For example, identification of a population as a distinct species may have to face a heap problem, such as, in the earlier stages of evolution the population are easily identified as a preexisting, but later becomes a divergent species. Exactly when did the speciation occur? There are three approaches to classifying life in biology, that is, three kinds of taxonomy: evoultionary taxonomy, cladism and phenticism. Cladism focuses on the evolutionary tree of life, the where and how an organism is placed in the system depends 1 2 on its historical relationships with other organisms and only on these relationships. Evolutionary taxonomy balances this focus on historical relationships with the degrees organisms have diverged from one another. Pheneticism looks to how much or how little organisms share overall similarity with other organisms as opposed with only looking at a few, key features. My task is to look at these three schools of taxonomy. Do they adequately fulfill their needs of classification and meet their goals? Does one fulfill its goals better? Is one more useful? Is one more correct than the others? I will consider these concerns by first reviewing rules of each school as set forth by their proponents. I will also look at commonly cited advantages and disadvantages of each school. Specific methods and practices are beyond the scope of this thesis. I am only looking at the theoretical bases of these schools of taxonomy. To attempt to do more makes for a massive undertaking, and it is more than I can accomplish here. One chapter will be devoted to each school of taxonomy. Before exploring each school, I will offer a first chapter explaining many terms needed in a discussion on biological taxonomy. These terms will be common among all three schools of taxonomy. The final chapter is dedicated to a final question I have for biological taxonomy: “How does each school respond to anomalies?” Exceptions, anomalies, and problem cases will be regularly found when classifying life and each school should have some means of response. These anomalies can reveal some benefits and weaknesses of the school of taxonomy used. I will turn to science fiction as a source of biological anomalies, as it is rife with them. These examples are particularly strange and difficult to 3 classify. If a school of taxonomy can deal with cyborgs, alien-human hybrids, and engineered societies then it is likely to be able to manage the diversity offered by contemporary earth. If a school cannot respond to these examples, then they will show why and how this may be worked around if necessary. These examples will illustrate which school produces the most useful classifications. Chapter 1 Definitions and Explanation of Terms Before discussion begins of any particular school of taxonomy, a review of commonly shared terms will help in subsequent chapters. These terms are central to taxonomy, and some are more problematic than others are. Definition of Taxonomy and Related Terms Taxonomy fulfills an important role for biology, and it aids all other fields of biology. Successful taxonomy aids in successful biology. Taxonomy provides a consistent naming system for all other fields of biology and lay naturalists, and a comprehensive expression of the diversity of and relationships among all life. Taxonomy incorporates as much information from all other biological fields as possible. A closer look at what taxonomy is and what it produces will help clarify the importance of this field. There are also other related terms that must be made clear to aid my following work. In particular, definitions of ‘systematics,’ ‘classification,’ ‘identification,’ ‘nomenclature,’ and ‘taxon’ will be helpful. These terms are not particularly problematic and their usage is generally agreed upon by the biologists. These terms generally signify what taxonomists do, such as ‘identification’ and ‘classification’ or the results of such 4 5 work, such as ‘taxon.’ Later I will tackle more problematic terms which refer to the “tools” of taxonomy such as ‘character’