Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Victor A. Albert

Print publication date: 2006

Print ISBN-13: 9780199297306

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2007

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297306.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 21 August 2019

What is the rationale for ‘Ockham's razor’ (a.k.a. parsimony) in phylogenetic inference?

What is the rationale for ‘Ockham's razor’ (a.k.a. parsimony) in phylogenetic inference?

Chapter:
(p.14) (p.15) Chapter 2 What is the rationale for ‘Ockham's razor’ (a.k.a. parsimony) in phylogenetic inference?
Source:
Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics
Author(s):

Arnold G. Kluge

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297306.003.0002

Philosophers continue to debate the meaning and rationale behind ‘Ockham's razor’. Two formally distinct justifications for parsimony can be distinguished: one that recommends positing as few theoretical components as possible, and a second recommending against positing the superfluous. Furthermore, parsimony as applied to phylogenetic inference can be separated into conceptual versus operational aspects. It is argued that phylogenetic inference is ideographic, springing from the idea that the relative recency of common ancestry can be represented directly as a concrete, spatio-temporally restricted, explainable thing — the cladogram — just as it can be accompanying transformations of inherited traits. Any phylogenetic method that assumes an evolutionary model can be criticized since it may assume counter-factual conditionals. Since models are usually statistical, relating them to the necessarily unique hypotheses of phylogeny is illogical. A further argument is that employing a model assumes more than background knowledge: that which is minimally sufficient to provide a causal explanation of historical individuality. Given the ideographic argument presented, in quantitative terms, parsimony should choose the hypothesis of cladistic relationships that minimizes the overall patristic difference, because that hypothesis has the greatest power to explain the independently heritable transformation events as propositions of homology.

Keywords:   ideographic, nomothetic, antisuperfluity, background knowledge, anti-free parameters, evolutionary models, testability, homology, transformation series, descent with modification

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .