This is one of the true delights of science; things refuse to be pigeon-holed and are invariably far more interesting than first meets the eye.

I wish I'd said that. Stu. You are absolutely right, and that expresses my attitude to science far better than anything I've posted.

You may, possibly, be right. But so what? Science is equipped to handle such uncertainties
Most science, leaving aside the [admittedly huge] topic of quantum mechanics, is only really comfortable with the idea that there is a single right answer, even if we haven't worked out what it is. A bit like Newton's clockwork universe: science was pretty comfortable things worked like that, even if they hadn't figured out all the rules. In biology, I suggest, there is an implicit assumption that there is a 'right' taxonomy of inheritance, for example, and while what we know may have flaws and omissions, each discovery will take us towards that 'true' solution.

Science is much less comfortable with the idea that maybe the taxonomy is no more than a matter of human convenience and we could use a completely different one in some circumstances where it happened to suit us better, which neither being more corre4ct than the other. The further we get from pure science into the applied, the more often this seems to happen. Medication, for example, often ends up with a whole range of drugs each of which helps a proportion of sufferers, but no effective way of telling whether a specific drug will help a specific purpose.