000			01981cam a2200241 4500500
005			20250121081323.0
041			_afre
042			_adc
100	1	0	_aOlson, Hope A. _eauthor
700	1	0	_a Beak, Jihee _eauthor
700	1	0	_a Choi, Inkyung _eauthor
245	0	0	_aThe Natural is Artificial: The Legacy of the Scientia Scientiarum
260			_c2013.
500			_a72
520			_aThe philosophy of science is epistemological, evaluating methodology, and the classification of the sciences is ontological, organizing the sciences and their objects. Both seek a universal structure of knowledge based on a scientific understanding of reality. This paper analyzes seminal texts by Robert Flint and E. C. Richardson and W. C. Berwick Sayers to trace the development of the inflexible and culturally-specific modern classificatory structure that has now become globalized. Richardson and Sayers described a model akin to Flint’s, focusing on unity and the differences between natural and artificial classifications. Of these, natural classification is truer, but not easily applicable. Artificial classification is more readily adaptable. Ultimately the boundary between the two is indistinct, especially in practice. Two US classifications, the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and the Dewey Decimal Classification for hurricanes, exemplify these difficulties. One classifies natural phenomena and the other classifies resources about natural things. Artificial classification displays a flexibility that is worth exploring as an accommodating alternative to mainstream perspectives.
690			_aphilosophy of science
690			_anatural classification
690			_aartificial classification
690			_aclassification of the sciences
690			_amodern classifications
786	0		_nHermès, La Revue | o 66 | 2 | 2013-08-29 | p. 38-45 | 0767-9513
856	4	1	_uhttps://shs.cairn.info/journal-hermes-la-revue-2013-2-page-38?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080
999			_c497875 _d497875