Classification: Why and How?

I think that the initial process of classification is abitrary. For example, in forming phylogenetic trees we must assign more salience to certain phenotypic characters than others when we are determining which species are more related to each other. Our decision on which shared trait is more important and more correlated with the relatedness of certain species can sometimes be arbitray. In the same way, it is arbitrary for us to decide which characteristics carry enough importance that when objects express all of them together, we group them together with a name.

However, once the initial arbitrary step is completed and understood among a group, it is no longer arbitrary to give such objects other names. Since the name that was assigned to those objects have already attain connotations and assumptions from people from having been grouped under that name in the first place.

Also, once an established label with understood properties is given to an object, the object acquires the properties that comes with the label. Therefore, classification is a quick and efficient system that we humans have devise so that our brain can instantly assign properties of objects by simply learning the name of them.

The Functions and Limitations of Classification

I mentioned in class that I had found a relivant article to our discussion that I would post. I'm really not expecting everyone to read the whole thing (it's a bit lengthy), but I wanted to point out the argument in the essay which we didn't spend much time discussing in class.

He explains the origin and significance of classification as a "the invention by man of ways in which events and things can be grouped, for the sole purpose of increasing his ability to deal with the events and things." This is important because, using these groups, man then has "disciminative capacities far beyond his ability to remember the details."

He does not ignore the issues/implications and limitations of classification that we discussed. Instead, he redefines the problem as a miss-use of the system in applications outside of which it was designed.

"It is hardly a failure of a radio set to be unable to produce visual images - it was designed to produce only auditory reactions."

It was very thought provoking, especially because it is not a common stance taken (at least in my experience). Actually, in my experience, people are usually angered at the idea of being classified in anyway, stating that the associated are limiting, and simplify the human experience. At the same time there are people who use classification to there advantage, like using one's race as an edge to get into college.

Now I realize I've diverged quite a bit from my original point, but I am interested in hearing what the rest of you thought of this essay.

Or how long does it take for scientists and general society to accept new discoveries, reclassifications, and theories?  The amount of time varies significantly.  I think that Thomas Kuhn’s characterization of the history and philosophy of science might offer some insight.  He differentiates between two modes of scientific progress normal science and revolutionary science.  Normal science is puzzle solving guided by a paradigm, story, or theory.  New observations and summaries of observations are added to the paradigm.  Revolutionary science occurs when one paradigm replaces another.  There are many reasons why one paradigm may supplant another.  The new paradigm might able to summarize the observations more simply, or offer different research opportunities, or answer questions that previous paradigm was unable to address.  I would like to argue that a change in nomenclature implies a change in theory.  Naming is a method of summarizing information; it is a component of a paradigm.  Therefore, Pluto’s reclassification is a small paradigm change, an example of revolutionary science.  The controversy described in the above articles are merely indications that the revolution is not finished.