This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
For those for whom this won't be obvious, the content of this page appears to be very inspired by George Lakoff. That's not a bad thing (I like Lakoff), but it should eventually be clarified in the article, and competing views should also be included. --Ryguasu 02:57 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
I added a link to Lakoff, expanded slightly, wikified a little, and removed the Wiktionary tag. Spalding 13:11, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
We should formulate an amendment to this entry to consist of information detailing the science of perceptual categorization. That is, the way people determine an individual or group's thematic status (e.g., reformer, deathbringer, atheist, Christian, scientist). Of course, this topic may be covered elsewhere. If so, then we should amend the article to disambiguate. Adraeus 14:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) --22.214.171.124 16:33, 29 May 2006
The statement "Ideally, a category illuminates a relationship between the subjects and objects of knowledge." is a paraphrase of a comment left by User:Jerzy when the Category system was just getting started in the summer of 2004. This statement lived on the category:fundamental page until recently. --Ancheta Wis 01:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if this entry discussed the differences between Categorization and Classification, if any. Same goes for the concepts Category and Class. Currently it appears to use the terms interchangeably. --Nick (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Following this discussion the pages were not merged. Cnilep (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Since nobody else has started a discussion of whether or not to merge Taxonomy (general) into this article, then here we go...
Oppose I'm not so sure that a merge is a good idea. Check the Ibox, which has "Categorization" as a "related field", but there is no "taxonomy" listed in that Ibox. Reason? Check Portal:Library and information science, which lists "Categorization" under the "Structure" heading, but "taxonomy" isn't even mentioned on that page. Reason? It appears that "taxonomy" and "categorization" are not quite the same thing. If each is notable for its particular application(s), and I believe they are, then they should retain their individual identity as separate and distinct articles. – PAINE ELLSWORTHCLIMAX! 02:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
What's the difference? Srnec (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
For me, categorization is a product of taxonomy. The scientist studies how things should be categorized/classified. Then when the study is done and the categories/classifications are worked out, even a wikignome like me can look for the right category to fit the subject – like I did for this new article. So while I'm not qualified to be a taxonomist, what I can do is work with what taxonomists formulate and organize. – PAINE ELLSWORTHCLIMAX! 00:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose – as per Paine Ellsworth, they are different topics, and merging them would result in a very confusing discussion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
"Taxonomy (general)" is still not a topic. It's a word taken out of the dictionary and an article built around that (maybe because some editors think that a word having both specialist and non-specialist uses must be confusing to the average reader). There is no "taxonomic" kind of categorization/classification over against the non-taxonomic kind. Or if there is, what would make a given classification scheme a taxonomy as opposed to a non-taxonomy? Srnec (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
In spite of the probable futility of discussing this with you, given your clinging to the ""Taxonomy (general)" is still not a topic." line, here's one more try to explain that categorization and taxonomy are not the same thing: if you search in scholar.google.com for the two words, many of the documents found will be studies of how people categorize things (such as edible or not-edible) and then discuss the possible taxonomy, i.e., what are the possible reasons that the people may be using to assign objects to those categories. Categorization is a process, taxonomy is an area of science and philosophy. Categorization includes fast computer algorithms for assigning objects to groups, after it has been decided what those groups should be. Taxonomy is about what groups might be appropriate, and whether networks or hierarchies are appropriate. Titles found with scholar.google.com include "Hierarchical taxonomy preparation for text categorization" and "Automatic thematic categorization of documents using a fuzzy taxonomy ". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Why? Are you saying that omega taxonomy is not part of taxonomy? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
No, are you saying that alpha taxonomy is not really taxonomy because it is not "about what groups might be appropriate, and whether networks or hierarchies are appropriate"? Srnec (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose 1. The proposer has given no rationale whatsoever. 2. The concepts are sufficiently different: Taxonomy is used to refer to any classificatory practice. E.g. sorting things in some way. Also used in philosophy in the sense of philosophical language or to mean some sort of explicit way of classifying the world. See also The Birth of the Clinic, Jacques Derrida on deconstruction, Performativity#History for some exemplary uses. (In that sense, the general use can be delimited from the biological meaning.) Categorisation, on the other hand, is used to refer to the mental processes that underly the possibility of such classifications and even the identification of a particular type of thing. That meaning is a central term in cognitive research and can not be covered in the article on taxonomy. If there is overlap between the two, I believe that this provides a criterium for to what extent there should be separate articles, and this is also why the articles could not be merged. 㓟 (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
* Additional comment Seriously, the proposal is to merge OR NOT to merge? The reason given is "since nobody else has started a discussion"?Additional comment Oh now I see, that was not the proposer … 㓟 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I moved this to talk page because it interrupts the flow of the page with a description of a study with no analysis or application to topic. Flying Hamster (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
fMRI studies of visual categorization in the human brain
Alexander Huth, et al., at the University of California, Berkeley, have demonstrated how five human subjects, each viewing over two hours of movie clips, were each scanned by functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging instruments. Each brain scan recorded blood flow in thousands of individual locations, across their respective brains. Principal components analysis of regularized linear regressions revealed 1700 visual categories of 30,000 locations in cortex. Huth et al. found highly organized, overlapping maps that occupied over 20% of cortex.