Rejecting "the given" in systematics.

Area of Science:

• Systematics
• Evolutionary Biology
• Morphological Analysis

Background:

• The integration of morphology and systematics via homology hypotheses and phylogenetic analysis remains debated.
• Current methods sometimes prioritize atheoretical phenetic approaches over biological evaluation of morphological characters.
• Trends toward uncritical empiricism and instrumentalism in homology assessment are noted.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the reliance on congruence testing for homology assessment in systematics.
• To argue for the necessity of empirical grounding beyond mere congruence for homology hypotheses.
• To propose avenues for strengthening homology hypotheses in phylogenetic analysis.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical critique of contemporary systematic approaches, particularly the use of congruence and total evidence.
• Analysis of the epistemological underpinnings of congruence testing (coherentism) versus inductive inference.
• Identification of limitations in Popperian philosophy's application to systematic methods.

Main Results:

• Congruence of characters is a necessary but insufficient condition for supporting homology or phylogenetic hypotheses.
• Over-reliance on congruence testing can lead to instrumentalism, detaching hypotheses from empirical reality.
• Current systematic practices may lack sufficient empirical foundation for homology hypotheses.

Conclusions:

• Hypotheses of homology require causal grounding beyond congruence, integrating diverse empirical evidence.
• Comparative anatomy, developmental biology, functional morphology, and secondary structure analyses are crucial for robust homology assessment.
• A balanced approach combining congruence with empirical investigation is essential for advancing systematics.