Theoricity, observation and homology: a response to Pearson

  • Ariel Jonathan Roffé
  • Santiago Ginnobili
  • Daniel Blanco
Notes and Comments


An interesting metatheoretical controversy took place during the 1980’s and 1990’s between pattern and phylogenetic cladists. What was always at stake in the discussion was not how work in systematics should be carried out, but rather how this practice should be metatheoretically interpreted. In this article, we criticize Pearson’s account of the metatheoretical factors at play in this discussion. Following him, we focus on the issue of circularity, and on the role that phylogenetic hypotheses play in the determination of “primary homologies”. Pearson argues that the recognition of primary homologies cannot be achieved without recourse to previous phylogenetic knowledge, and that to claim otherwise is to state that primary homologies are observable. To show why that view would be inadequate, he appeals to Hanson’s views about theory-laden observation, alongside with a specific case study, which allegedly illustrates the more complex relation between observation and theory. We will argue that the pattern cladists’ point (at least regarding the issue of homology) is better addressed by taking a quite different approach: instead of thinking in terms of observability, the topic can be tackled by paying attention to the way in which concepts are determined. We will take the notion of T-theoricity from metatheoretical structuralism and show that, once the issue is discussed with the appropriate metatheoretical framework, the alleged counterexample brought up by Pearson is not problematic at all for pattern cladism.


Cladistics Pattern cladistics Homology T-theoricity Metatheoretical structuralism Evolutionary theory 


  1. Balzer, W., Moulines, C., & Sneed, J. (1987). An architectonic for science: The structuralist program. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Hillel, Y. (1970). Neorealism vs. neopositivism. In Y. Bar-Hillel (Ed.), Aspects of language (pp. 263–272). Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beatty, J. (1982). Classes and cladists. Systematic Zoology, 31(1), 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanco, D. (2012). Primera aproximación estructuralista a la Teoría del Origen en Común. Ágora, 31(2), 171–194.Google Scholar
  5. de Pinna, M. (1991). Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics, 7(4), 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gould, S., & Vrba, E. (1982). Exaptation—A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hempel, C. (1970). On the ‘standard conception’ of scientific theories. In S. Radner (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. IV, pp. 142–163). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, D. (1970). How to define theoretical terms. The Journal of Philosophy, 67(13), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Owen, R. (1849). On the nature of limbs. London: John Van Voorst, Paternoster Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pearson, C. (2010). Pattern cladism, homology, and theory-neutrality. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 32(4), 475–492.Google Scholar
  11. Platnick, N. (1979). Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Systematic Zoology, 28, 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Putnam, H. (1962). What Theories are Not. In E. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ramírez, M. (2007). Homology as a parsimony problem: A dynamic homology approach for morphological data. Cladistics, 23(6), 588–612.Google Scholar
  14. Remane, A. (1952). Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Leipzig: Geest & Portig.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, W., & Wheeler, W. (2006). Venom evolution widespread in fishes: A phylogenetic road map for the bioprospecting of piscine venoms. The Journal of Heredity, 97(3), 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sneed, J. (1971). The logical structure of mathematical physics. Dordrecht-Holland: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wheeler, W. (1996). Optimization alignment: The end of multiple sequence alignment in phylogenetics? Cladistics, 12(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018
corrected publication July 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Center for Philosophy and History of Science (CEFHIC)-National University of Quilmes (UNQ)National University of Tres de Febrero (UNTREF)Buenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Center for Philosophy and History of Science (CEFHIC)-National University of Quilmes (UNQ)University of Buenos Aires (UBA)Buenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.National University of the Littoral (UNL)Santa FeArgentina

Personalised recommendations