DNA Barcoding: Criticism, Countercriticism, and Commentary.

[Kai]

This article was published in the Journal of Molecular Ecology Resources earlier this year, meant as a humorous counterarguement to the so called "Amalgamated Union of
Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and other Professional Thinking Persons" that constitute the traditional taxonomist and their methods (a tip of the hat to Douglas Adams of course). It falls short. Not really that funny. I guess I can understand why you might get worked into a fervor to defend the poor defenseless (booming) biotech barcoding industry from the mean scary (dying breed, last of their kind, marginalized) taxonomy old men-monsters, who wish to kill all your dreams. Never mind that the barcoding movement is often touted as an end to traditional taxonomy, of morphological methods, of real sit down observational McClintock type science, an end for the need to have real first hand knowlege of what you're studying. I bet the ecologists would love that.

Just so. The whole thing reeks of marketing.  And while the church bells toll the death rattle of the naturalist, we bicker about which tool to throw out of the toolbox. When was the last time you got rid of your wrenches after buying a whole new set of screwdrivers? Likewise, what scientist that only uses one metric for a conclusion is taken seriously? I agree that strong inference is one of the keys to discovery, but in this war of whose toy/technique/dick is the bestest, any sense of synthesis and collaboration is lost in a polarizing dichotomy. And so, the sides are show to each other as dinosaurian/alien evils.

Its like religion, sometimes.

[P3nT4gR4m]

This article was published in the Journal of Molecular Ecology Resources earlier this year, meant as a humorous counterarguement to the so called "Amalgamated Union of
Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and other Professional Thinking Persons" that constitute the traditional taxonomist and their methods (a tip of the hat to Douglas Adams of course). It falls short. Not really that funny. I guess I can understand why you might get worked into a fervor to defend the poor defenseless (booming) biotech barcoding industry from the mean scary (dying breed, last of their kind, marginalized) taxonomy old men-monsters, who wish to kill all your dreams. Never mind that the barcoding movement is often touted as an end to traditional taxonomy, of morphological methods, of real sit down observational McClintock type science, an end for the need to have real first hand knowlege of what you're studying. I bet the ecologists would love that.

Just so. The whole thing reeks of marketing.  And while the church bells toll the death rattle of the naturalist, we bicker about which tool to throw out of the toolbox. When was the last time you got rid of your wrenches after buying a whole new set of screwdrivers? Likewise, what scientist that only uses one metric for a conclusion is taken seriously? I agree that strong inference is one of the keys to discovery, but in this war of whose toy/technique/dick is the bestest, any sense of synthesis and collaboration is lost in a polarizing dichotomy. And so, the sides are show to each other as dinosaurian/alien evils.

Its like religion, sometimes.

I've always seen it as being like that but that's the human element to blame, not the science itself.

Where it kicks the shit out of religion, IMO, is technology.

Did god give us PS3's? Did Jesus give us HD Flatscreens? Did fucking Allah give us beer coolers? No - that was science. Religion ovar!

[Kai]

More recently, I don't see science as what we do (ie technology), but rather as a way of looking at the universe and a way of thinking. Its a process based upon strong logical inference, and while mathematics and technology and all the rest are wonderful inventions, they aren't science in the strict sense, rather, they're products of scientific process. Simply knowing a lot doesn't help you do science, as you can see from the above problems. I'm highly doubtful the people in this conflict are anything but highly intelligent. What helps you do science, what makes it possible to make discovery, is a mind based in deductive (synthesis of past hypotheses into a greater framework to explain the universe) and inductive (synthesis of new hypotheses about the universe from physical observation) reasoning, and especially in strong inference. Its no strange thing that people like Barbara McClintock and Louis Pasteur were able to jump from project to project making incredible discoveries, because either consciously (Pasteur) or subconsciously (McClintock) they were using deduction, induction and strong inference to work through problems efficiently and increase their understanding of the universe.

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/science64_strong_inference.pdf I highly suggest that everyone read this paper on strong inference (also linked above); it will be helpful to any path of scientific discovery.