Abstract

Cognition is not a process of mastering truths, i.e., grains of ultimate knowledge. Even in the details, cognition only allows us to get closer to the ultimate truth, not to reach it. Consequently, the real tool of knowledge is not a proof, but a presumption. The latter refers to a certain decision that was successfully established in the past in an appropriate context and therefore can be taken without additional proofs, though only in the absence of serious contradictory evidence. Two paradigms compete within the framework of modern evolutionary biology, i.e., the dominant cladistic paradigm and the often disregarded but indestructible phyletic paradigm, which grew from the traditional view on systematics and evolution. Cladistics corresponds to the genetic (=population-genetic, “synthetic”) theory of evolution, whereas phyletics corresponds to the holistic (=“epigenetic”) one. The cladistic paradigm seemingly offers a strict procedure of objective analysis, but its prerequisites, such as the mandatory dichotomy of a particular phylum combined with the simultaneous disappearance of an ancestor, which disregards the possibility of speciation without divergence, are hardly consistent with the real order of things, and unavoidable sources of subjectivity are also usually ignored. The holistic paradigm does not represent a less clear procedure, but a more complex protocol of analysis, since it not only recognizes the unavoidable elements of subjectivity but also explicitly introduces them into the research protocol as a choice between the conflicting presumptions. Phyletics, as part of the holistic paradigm, provides taxonomic and phylogenetic schemes that are stabler in the long run, and the holistic theory of evolution, together with the adaptive compromise metaphor derived from it, can explain many evolutionary phenomena that are incompatible with the genetic (“synthetic”) theory of evolution, such as the discrete nature of biological diversity, the fundamental nonuniformity of the evolutionary process, and the paradox of the inverse correlation between the evolutionary rate and level of organization, e.g., the highest and lowest rates of the evolution of large mammals and microorganisms, respectively.

中文翻译：

---

进化生物学哲学

摘要

认知不是掌握真理的过程，即掌握最终知识的过程。即使在细节上，认知也只能使我们更接近最终的真理，而无法达到。因此，真正的知识工具不是证明，而是推定。后者是指过去在适当情况下成功建立的某个决定，因此，即使没有严重的自相矛盾的证据，也可以在没有其他证据的情况下做出决定。两种范式在现代进化生物学的框架内竞争，即占统治地位的分类范式和经常被忽视但不可破坏的系统范式，它们是从传统的系统学和进化观发展而来的。Cladistics对应于进化的遗传（=种群-遗传，“合成”）理论，而系统学与整体（表观遗传）相对应。宗派范式看似提供了严格的客观分析程序，但其先决条件（例如特定门的强制二分法和祖先的同时消失）无视物种形成而无差异的可能性，这与真实顺序几乎不一致。事物以及不可避免的主观性来源通常也被忽略。整体范式并不是一个不太清晰的过程，而是一个更为复杂的分析协议，因为它不仅认识到不可避免的主观性元素，而且还明确地将它们引入研究协议中，作为在相互矛盾的假设之间进行选择。作为整体范式的一部分，语音学