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