Testing and weighting characters

Published justifications for weighting characters in parsimony analyses vary tremendously. Some authors argue for weighting a posteriori, some for a priori, and especially those authors that rely on a falsificationist approach to systematics argue for non-weighting. To find a decision, while following the falsificationist approach, one first has to investigate the necessary conditions for the possibility of phylogenetic research to establish an empirical science sensu Popper. A concept of phylogenetic homology together with the criterion of identity is proposed, which refers to the genealogical relations between individual organisms. From this concept a differentiation of the terms character and character state is proposed, defining each character as a single epistemological argument for the reconstruction of a unique transformation event. Synapomorphy is distinguished from homology by referring to the relationship between species instead of individual organisms, thus the set of all synapomorphies constitutes a subset of the set of all homologies. By examining the structure of characteristics during character analysis and hypothesizing specific types of transformations responsible for having caused them, a specific degree of severity is assigned to each identity test. It thus provides a specific degree of corroboration for every hypothesis that successfully passed this test. Since the congruence criterion tests hypotheses of synapomorphy against each other on grounds of their degree of corroboration gained from the identity test, these different degrees of corroboration determine the specific weights given to characters and character state transformations before the cladistic analysis. This provides a reasonable justification for an a priori weighting scheme within a falsificationist approach to phylogeny. It also demonstrates the indispensable necessity of its application.