Editing Cladistics (section)

== Criticism ==

Cladistics, either generally or in specific applications, has been criticized from its beginnings. Decisions as to whether particular character states are [[Homology (biology)|homologous]], a precondition of their being synapomorphies, have been challenged as involving [[circular reasoning]] and subjective judgements.<ref name="AdraEdgeLieb02">{{Harvnb|Adrain|Edgecombe|Lieberman|2002|pp=56–57}}</ref> Of course, the potential unreliability of evidence is a problem for any systematic method, or for that matter, for any empirical scientific endeavor at all.<ref>[[Naomi Oreskes|Oreskes, Naomi]], Kristin Shrader-Frechette, and Kenneth Belitz. "Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences." Science 263, no. 5147 (1994): 641-646.</ref><ref>Nils Møller Anderson, 2001 The impact of W. Hennig’s “phylogenetic systematics” on contemporary entomology ''Eur. J.Entomol. 98: 133-150'' [https://www.eje.cz/pdfs/eje/2001/02/02.pdf online]</ref>

[[Transformed cladistics]] arose in the late 1970s <ref>Platnick, Norman I. "Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics." Systematic Zoology 28, no. 4 (1979): 537–546.</ref> in an attempt to resolve some of these problems by removing a priori assumptions about phylogeny from cladistic analysis, but it has remained unpopular.<ref>Brower, Andrew VZ. "Fifty shades of cladism." Biology & Philosophy 33, no. 1-2 (2018): 8.</ref>