$ecular#eckler
Platinum Member
Neither has a scientific formulation, nor do we memorize the general categories. And this is a problem, because library classification systems are representative of the range of human knowledge. And if we had a better sense of the range and hierarchy of subjects then it is possible that less inclined people may grasp critical thinking.
These two images are new, and the best renditions for memorizing that I have ever encountered, but they are abridged of the actual listings for the general categories
There is probably little doubt that the browsable library system has enhanced the research students' learning by allowing them to discover relative subjects and subsequent books by serendipitous discovery. But here we are a hundred and fifty years progressed since the systems were first introduced, and they have not been challenged by any new ideas for organizing subjects of knowledge.
And I believe that the lack of a system that better demarcates the subjects of knowledge is partially the reason why our political and social discourse is disappointing and contentious.
These two images are new, and the best renditions for memorizing that I have ever encountered, but they are abridged of the actual listings for the general categories
| |
000 – Computer science, information & general works 100 – Philosophy & psychology 200 – Religion 300 – Social sciences 400 – Language 500 – Pure Science 600 – Technology 700 – Arts & recreation 800 – Literature 900 – History & geography | Letter Subject area A General Works B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion C Auxiliary Sciences of History D World History and History of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc.. E History of the Americas F History of the Americas 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 |
Dewey Decimal Classification - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
|
Library of Congress Classification - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
|
One of the innovations of the Dewey Decimal system was that of positioning books on the shelves in relation to other books on similar topics. When the system was first introduced, most libraries in the US used fixed positioning: each book was assigned a permanent shelf position based on the book's height and date of acquisition. Library stacks were generally closed to all but the most privileged patrons, so shelf browsing was not considered of importance. The use of the Dewey Decimal system increased during the early 20th century as librarians were convinced of the advantages of relative positioning and of open shelf access for patrons. | The classification was invented by Herbert Putnam in 1897, just before he assumed the librarianship of Congress. With advice from Charles Ammi Cutter, it was influenced by his Cutter Expansive Classification, the Dewey Decimal System, and the Putnam Classification System (developed while Putnam was head librarian at the Minneapolis Public Library). It was designed specifically for the purposes and collection of the Library of Congress to replace the fixed location system developed by Thomas Jefferson. By the time Putnam departed from his post in 1939, all the classes except K (Law) and parts of B (Philosophy and Religion) were well developed. LCC has been criticized for lacking a sound theoretical basis; many of the classification decisions were driven by the practical needs of that library rather than epistemological considerations. Although it divides subjects into broad categories, it is essentially enumerative in nature. That is, it provides a guide to the books actually in one library's collections, not a classification of the world. |
There is probably little doubt that the browsable library system has enhanced the research students' learning by allowing them to discover relative subjects and subsequent books by serendipitous discovery. But here we are a hundred and fifty years progressed since the systems were first introduced, and they have not been challenged by any new ideas for organizing subjects of knowledge.
And I believe that the lack of a system that better demarcates the subjects of knowledge is partially the reason why our political and social discourse is disappointing and contentious.