Science and Information Taxonomy

[SidewalkCynic]

Moderation Note: This post has been moved from the thread "What is Science" as it deals with a subject unrelated to definitions of science.

 

As much as I'd like to address your last sentence, this whole thread has careened off topic.

 

Let's please keep this thread on topic. If you'd like to discuss something other than "what is science" then do so in another thread.

More often than not, discussions have a tendency to tangent, and the tangent may, or may not, add to the primary topic. In a discussion such as this, where it has been demonstrated that there is no agreement for a concise definition of a term (science) that is used to designate an essential element of modern society, tangents such as the concern of obligation of the practitioners to society is not detrimental to the primary topic.

 

As, I have described, I have dedicated as much intellectual energy as I can to sorting the arrangement of the taxonomy of all of Western Civilization's knowledge; and it is not as complex, as it is only poorly presented by the DDC and LCC systems. My experience, of developing an arrangement starting from the DDC, and going through as many comparisons of subjects, and then rearranging, and rearranging in search of the most efficient techno-logical rendition, has lead me to realize that library classification systems are the public most basic introduction to science - if you were to realize that science defines the classification of subjects (defining information). However, because the DDC and LCC are so antiquated, and never considered relevant to social organization, their possible application has yet to be realized - kind of like back packs, after decades, it wasn't until the 80's that they became a common piece of a person's utility.

 

And so, I believe this discussion's tangent, alerting scientist to the libraries' classification systems as being reference points of techno-logic for the general public, is apart of aiding in the understanding the complicated misunderstandings of what is science. because in essence, scientists are, themselves, members of the social system - and I doubt if they believe society to be orderly, or tranquil. And I believe the misunderstandings are to be corrected by rendering, and imposing, standardized classification systems - it's nothing different then imposing a school curriculum on children.

 

Now, although, I have devised a rendition of a complete general taxonomy of knowledge, I believe it is a good exercise, for those who should consider themselves masters of classifying information, to give it a try - devise a taxonomy of knowledge that they would believe could benefit our children to better understand society.

 

When I publish my rendition, I suspect it will be the new stepping stone, and hot-shot community college scholars are going to challenge my system with merely a variation of my system - as being the better update, or something. It really doesn't matter to me, because it is going to go directly to government regulation, and I am confident that not until most libraries adopt a system very similar to my rendition, can we actually improve the system, and subsequently society's collective understanding of how society/community is reliant on information classification taxonomies.

 

So, if scientists, are not responsible for information taxonomies, who is?

[SidewalkCynic]

Dewey Decimal Classification system

The DDC attempts to organize all knowledge into ten main classes. The ten main classes are each further subdivided into ten divisions, and each division into ten sections, giving ten main classes, 100 divisions and 1000 sections. DDC's advantage in using decimals for its categories allows it to be both purely numerical and infinitely hierarchical. It also uses some aspects of a faceted classification scheme, combining elements from different parts of the structure to construct a number representing the subject content (often combining two subject elements with linking numbers and geographical and temporal elements) and form of an item rather than drawing upon a list containing each class and its meaning.

 

000 – Computer science, information, and general works

100 – Philosophy and psychology

200 – Religion

300 – Social sciences

400 – Languages

500 – Science and Mathematics

600 – Technology and applied science

700 – Arts and recreation

800 – Literature

900 – History and geography and biography

The Dewey system appears easy enough to understand. Certainly, we have more than ten "main classes," I count 18; and originally computer science was not anticipated and was added to the Generalities recently. I have found no information as to how Dewey derived the original classes he patented in the late 1800.

DDC's decimal system means that it is less hospitable to the addition of new subjects, as opposed to Library of Congress Classification, which has 21 classes at the top level. DDC notations can be much longer compared to other classification systems.

 

Another disadvantage of DDC is that it was developed in the 19th century essentially by one man and was built on a top-down approach to classify all human knowledge, which makes it difficult to adapt to changing fields of knowledge. The Library of Congress Classification system was developed based mainly on the idea of literary warrant; classes were added (by individual experts in each area) only when needed for works owned by the Library of Congress. As a result, while the Library of Congress Classification system was able to incorporate changes and additions of new branches of knowledge, particularly in the fields of engineering and computer science (the greater hospitability of the Library of Congress Classification was also a factor), DDC has been criticized for being inadequate in covering those areas. It is asserted that, as a result, most major academic libraries in the US do not use the DDC because the classification of works in those areas is not specific enough, although there are other reasons that may truly be more weighty, such as the much lower expense of using a unique "pre-packaged" catalog number instead of having highly skilled staff members engaging in the time-consuming development of catalog numbers.

 

The Library of Congress Classification system is not without problems. Because each area is developed by an expert according to demands of cataloging, there is little consistency. It is also highly US-centric (more so than DDC) because of the nature of the system, and it has been translated into far fewer languages than DDC and UDC.

 

The Library of Congress Classification (LCC) is a system of library classification developed by the Library of Congress. It is used by most research and academic libraries in the U.S. and several other countries. It is not to be confused with the Library of Congress Subject Headings or Library of Congress Control Number. Most public libraries and small academic libraries continue to use the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC).

 

The classification was originally developed by Herbert Putnam in 1897, just before he assumed the librarianship of Congress. With advice from Charles Ammi Cutter, it was influenced by Cutter Expansive Classification, and the DDC, and was specially designed for the special purposes of the Library of Congress. The new system replaced a fixed location system developed by Thomas Jefferson. By the time of Putnam's departure from his post in 1939, all the classes except K (Law) and parts of B (Philosophy and Religion) were well developed. It has been criticized as lacking a sound theoretical basis; many of the classification decisions were driven by the particular practical needs of that library, rather than epistemological considerations.

 

Although it divides subjects into broad categories, it is essentially enumerative in nature. It provides a guide to the books actually in the library, not a classification of the world.

 

A General Works

B Philosophy, Psychology, and Religion

C Auxiliary Sciences of History

D General and Old World History

E History of America

F History of the United States and British, Dutch, French, and Latin America

G Geography, Anthropology, and Recreation

H Social Sciences

J Political Science

K Law

L Education

M Music

N Fine Arts

P Language and Literature

Q Science

R Medicine

S Agriculture

T Technology

U Military Science

V Naval Science

Z Bibliography, Library Science, and General Information Resources

To their credit neither classification system takes the responsibility to classify information in a rendition of how people perceive knowledge to arrange in some type of order. Their claims are ambiguous, unscientific for sure. I mean if science can determine an order of physical, chemical and biological matter, why should science not be able to determine the order of human knowledge?

 

And because of the advancements in scientific discovery (defining information), detailing categories, I believe it is now possible to present information in a manner that resembles the perception of how knowledge is arranged. And I have composed a rendition that I am prepared to release publicaly. However, it is to everyones advantage if there is some other rendition presented for comparison. I sincerely believe my system is very stable for at least four levels of the hierarchy, and only variations of my system are possible, and once my system is released I am confident of a monopoly that will send it directly to local government regulation and state and federal recording.

 

Notice how the term, "science," is used. It does not align with what we have been discussing in the, What is Science, thread. If science is the act of performing the scientific method then the sub-categories of such domains should be the steps of the method with respect to the sub-fields' better designation of the step.

 

And, then there's, "Generalities."

 

ROTFLMAO:roll::D:roll:;)

[SidewalkCynic]

Here is my rendition of what would be recognized as the Science domain. I redesignate it as "Naturology."

NATUROLOGY

 

Physicology

Physics

Chemistry

Astronomy

Terrestriology

Geology

Oceanology

Meteorology

Paleontology

Anthropology

Biology

Microbiology

Botany

Zoology

Ecology

I sincerely believe that upon devising a stable taxonomy of human knowledge, of your own rendering, you will realize what science is, and where it is in society. Until then, you are in an unstable, theoretical, belief system.