To this non scientist, taxonomy, speciation, still poses a lot of unanswered questions, even at the most basic level 'what is a species' so how can you possibly have 'one truth'. If the scientists can't agree, what chance us mere mortals.
From various discussions on this forum, my understanding is that the definition of a species is difficult and perhaps a rather man made construct. It can be argued that taxonomy is a rather theoretical and opinionated science. For many scientific fields, science is hard fact - yes there will definitely be peer reviews, but you don't need the 'judgement' of a panel of the wise to establish facts, just to establish a consensus of viewpoints.
What surprises me I suppose, is how keen many of us dabble in taxonomy, rather than just being content with the output...as birdwatchers do we really need to get bogged down in what is a species, or can we just accept that people have spent a lot of time creating a 'list', that allows me to classify my observations?
You could argue that a single list is authoritarian, but there is nothing stopping me from using whatever version of any list from any time period... It would be a bit like using Windows 10... yes updates will cease this year, but you will still be able to use it, and probably without much to worry about.
We can choose to be affronted or reflect on the consequences and impact of 'authoritarianism'. We loose or gain a few species, which we could consider a loss or a benefit, we may also have a tedious process to convert (perhaps not if convergence is a slow process implemented over the years, as appears to be happening), but we also benefit in other ways - for example hopefully our field guides align with trip reports, checklists and general discussions about what we are looking at - As a real example, I found it rather frustrating in PNG that my field guide was based on BirdLife, the tour info on IOC... and if you were using EBird, well then Clements!... and this was at a time when the taxonomy or PNG birds was in a state of flux anyway.
If we assume that taxonomy is too complex for mere mortals (and scientists) to agree upon, then what is the real advantage of having three competing viewpoints? - Multiple viewpoints can be valuable for important issues (say a second medical opinion), but otherwise??? We don't even have multiple viewpoints in law (just the viewpoint of a single jury).
I don't think anyone is able to really argue that their adopted taxonomy is better than the other ones. It seems more to be where you live that sways the decision (Clements the States, IOC Europe etc.). I actually recall starting to use IOC and then being pleased I was ahead of the game, when the BOU declared they were ditching their regional taxonomic list and adopting the same. I chose IOC not because I thought it the best, but because it was available on the internet and regularly updated. However, I have always thought BirdLife's list is probably the best, as it is includes taxonomic notes, which at least allow me to understand their perceived logic behind a lot of decisions - it is less of a black box technology... but they were woefully late at making their list available online (well at least complete with subspecies, and their list still does not include range information).
I have spent a vast amount of time trying to align IOC, BirdLife and Clements to build a database system, then to map this information againt country checklists and my work is virtually complete. You could therefore argue that I have skin in the game of keeping three lists going, but the work has been a chore and tiresome, and the database has to be tweaked for every update (4 per year - 2 IOC, 1 Clements, 1 BirdLife). It would be much simpler for me if there was one practical list - more time bird watching and less time coding. There may be few people who spend time maintaining databases of multiple taxonomies, but I know a few.
Perhaps the efforts to create databases on multiple taxonomies are rather extreme, but I can't help think about every book, report, magazine, database etc. where the authors/curators need to select a taxonomy (which one will appeal most to me audience? which one will be most compatible with other regional works?) and consider taxonomic sequence and taxonomic change (what do I need to rearrange, rename, split and lump following the latest revision)... at least a single taxonomy with negate the need for the first consideration.
For me, I can see benefit (although I seem to be loosing species from my life list in the latest updates and convergence). Is there a real disadvantage, apart from the imposition of having a taxonomy foisted upon you?... and thanks to the WGAC this appears to be being done surreptitiously in any case...in baby steps with each and every update of a taxonomy.
