Einstein thought: "The development of western science is based on two great achievements, namely, the formal logic system invented by Greek philosophers (in Euclidean geometry) and the discovery of causality through systematic experiments (in the Renaissance)". Classification is a category of formal logic. In the era of cultural control, China library classification must take Quotations from Chairman Mao as the guiding ideology, "based on Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, dialectical materialism and historical materialism, establish categories and arrange them in order ... and consider their ideological and political contents". In order to highlight the political nature, the editor first listed Marxist-Leninist works as a basic category; Put the books whose contents are not exclusive and cannot be classified according to the nature of the subject content at the end. In that special historical era, the editor claimed to highlight politics, which was understandable by the older generation. However, too general reference to "theoretical basis" can not keep pace with the times, and accepting the scientific achievements of western thinking theory is equivalent to the lack of theory. Whether China Library Classification is scientific or not can also be measured and judged by formal logic theory.
Classification rule
1. There can only be one standard at each level between the concepts of genus and species.
4. The sum of the extensions of the children is equal to the extension of the parent, otherwise the division is incomplete or there are many children.
3. The divided concepts are incompatible, and the concepts of genus and species cannot be juxtaposed.
According to Chairman Mao's quotation, "What is knowledge? Since the emergence of class society, there have been only two kinds of knowledge in the world, one is called production struggle and the other is called class struggle. Natural science and social science are the crystallization of these two kinds of knowledge, while philosophy is the generalization and summary of knowledge of nature's and social knowledge as the theoretical basis for determining the basic structure of classification. Accordingly, China Library Classification divides knowledge into three categories: philosophy, social science and natural science. Then, the works and comprehensive books of Ma, Lie and Mao are listed at the beginning and end, forming five basic categories and then divided into 22 categories. In fact, these divisions are independent of each other, not a species relationship, and there is no logical connection.
Books are the carrier of knowledge, and classification is the extension of dividing books, not necessarily by content. Knowledge is only one of the bases of division, which is mainly reflected in the division of disciplines. Knowledge classification and book classification are related, but they cannot be confused. Chairman Mao clearly believes that there are only two kinds of knowledge, and philosophy and social science are concepts of genus relationship, which cannot be juxtaposed! Because the classification of knowledge and books is chaotic, the form and content are complex, and the classification standards are chaotic, so that "comprehensive books" have more sub-items and are compatible with the other four categories. This is an obvious logical error. 22 categories are mainly divided by subject categories, but not all of them, and there is no certain standard. For example, "comprehensive books" cannot be regarded as a discipline, and industrial technology is the concept of industrial technology, which is different from the concept of disciplines. Class O (Mathematical Science and Chemistry) is a combination of different disciplines. Another example is Class G (culture, science, education, sports), which is actually a discipline with different relationships. How can you be classified as one?
Obviously, China Library Classification is not a scientific logical classification. It is called multi-category method, category alternation method, reference category method, category reclassification method, imitation method, direct combination method of main category numbers and so on. In fact, these methods are only technical remedies or expedient measures, not scientific classification rules. Scientific logical classification rules are unique. Law is an unchangeable scientific law that must be followed, and rules can be artificial methods, not in the same breath. Classification restriction
Compared with foreign taxonomy, China's ancient taxonomy is advanced, but it also has congenital deficiencies. The so-called four categories are actually not a logical classification. Jing, Shi, Zi and Ji are not the concepts of genus-species relationship, but are listed separately by different standards in terms of sub-language expression. Therefore, since the Millennium, there has been confusion and controversy about the return of books. This congenital genetic defect has also been passed on to contemporary librarians. Try to compare.
Five basic categories of ancient library classification in China.
Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong's Classic Works
Historical philosophy
Subsocial science
Setting up natural science
Books (non-classic, non-history, non-collection) comprehensive books
Note: The four ancient books contain knowledge of philosophy, society and nature. (author)
Dividing books into five categories is actually a copy of the "four categories" (five additional books)! It is the influence of the times to regard the works of Ma, Lie and Mao as classics. The so-called "class" covers two different logical thinking. Regression is to limit and summarize the concept extension by increasing or decreasing the connotation of the concept; Classification is the division of conceptual extension. The word "department" cannot be established. In Chinese Library Classification, some of the 22 categories, such as G (culture, science, education and sports), are called "category groups". If the definition is explained, the so-called category group is called category group. There is no theoretical basis. The establishment structure is complex. This process is very complicated.
From the whole to the division, from the general to the concrete is not the logical method of concept division, but the deductive induction, which is a demonstration method. Chinese Library Classification regards it as a classification method or structure, and the definition of "total" is not exact, which does not conform to the actual situation of document generation and inheritance. The argument of things can be from total to total, or from total to total. Even if the argument method of total score can be applied to book classification, and the general connotation is defined as theory and its depth, however, documents are produced from total score, from total to total, from perceptual knowledge to rational knowledge, while Chinese Library Classification, on the contrary, adopts the arrangement method from total score to score. Constrained by this frame, it has been stretched, and the wrong pitch is. Let me give you an example: Q Summary of Biological Sciences, from "general biology" to "anthropology" are all theoretical theories, and then the classification of general biology: "10 origin of life" to "19 biological taxonomy" is exactly from point to surface.
"China Library Classification" learns from the international decimal classification, and sets up six kinds of multiple classification tables. For categories that have * * * or may have multiple classification problems, try to imitate multiple classifications to reduce the length of classification tables. In fact, the problem of * * * can be solved with common sense markers, and the constant should be changed. If each unit book content concept is given a carry code, it will limit the "expansibility" and damage the auxiliary function. The principle of order is vague, without any hint or regularity.
The arrangement of books should be based on revealing the inheritance relationship of documents and strict scientific logical division. Because the meaning of the classification is not clear, the D-type (political and legal) laws are listed as D9 in the short list. After breaking down the law books, it is called the "second classification system", which makes people puzzled.
The Library Classification of China uses 22 capital letters as the codes of major categories, and some "affiliated disciplines" are marked with th, TN and other double letters. In order to flaunt its localization, the compilation instructions are represented by Chinese phonetic alphabet instead of W, so as not to be confused with U recognition. However, in fact, English letters are used for recognition and reading.
Influenced by Dewey's decimal classification, China Library adopted decimal. Decimal is an advanced calculation rule invented by China in ancient times. The application of decimal system in book labeling should be based on the correct division of concepts. If the genus and species are unknown, the division is incomplete, the subordinate relationship is reversed, there are many sub-items, and the relationship is compatible, the decimal is not only meaningless, but even chaotic. Division cannot be accurate to decimal, and some may exceed it. In fact, the classification of Chinese Library Classification includes irregular carry, binary, ternary and pentad. Sometimes octal (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 1, 92) or binary (1,12 ... 99) is used. Therefore, its arrangement vision is easily confused with natural serial numbers, thus destroying the principle of order. Some people mistake the carry system for classification, but it is actually a standard conversion representation. In order to expand the literature, Chinese Library Classification keeps the carry group number, the essence of which should be reserved space, and the real standard carry system is natural ordinal number. Sequence relation is the core of the definition of ordinal number of natural numbers, and it is also the key to book classification and shelving. Any symbol used to represent a sequence is an ordinal expression, such as A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, and even Liu Jia's No.8 is an ordinal number, and its bit value is expressed by special symbols "shelf" and "number", instead of directly expressing carry with the positional relationship of the basic symbols themselves. When orderly carry cannot be realized, it is best to use special carry and natural ordinal number to express it.
In Chinese Library Classification, there are many books that can enter this category or that category, or the ambiguous phenomenon of "it is appropriate to enter here". When we enter a topic keyword search, there will be three or four or five categories. Tags are not associated with topic categories, and there is no hint. Classification number, request number and book number overlap, marking is complicated, retrieval is complicated, and the definition standard of species number is vague. It is impossible to realize the integration of retrieval, cataloging and indexing and the open self-help classification and cataloging, which makes the Chinese Library Classification lose its popularization function. There is no substantial difference between China Library Classification and Dewey Decimal Classification in terms of structure and expression principle. It is similar to the classification of the Library of Congress and the improved international decimal classification, and it intends to integrate all or even future knowledge into it. It's too abstract to label with pure numbers. Its revision system can only temporarily solve the division errors of some technologies and knowledge, and it is difficult to solve the problems of theory, basic marking and division structure. Its revision system itself, the coexistence of new and old book classification numbers and various classification methods left in the revised stacks show that the book classification in China and even the world is in trouble, just like the female monster in The Journey to the West, who immediately ages without drinking human blood.
Knowledge is dynamically integrated, intersected and developed, and the classification rules are unchanged, so knowledge classification and traditional book classification will inevitably conflict. Librarians should downplay the exploration of knowledge classification, free themselves from the quagmire of knowledge classification and return to book classification. We can refer to the international standard classification ICS, and refer to the subject classification and codes of China people and China for comprehensive application, but it is not appropriate to quote them completely, nor can we break away or even go their separate ways. The word order method of subject words can effectively solve the problem of orderly extraction of knowledge. Any knowledge and its new disciplines are developed on the basis of the original disciplines. As long as we insist on reflecting its time series relationship and inheritance relationship, insisting on taking readers as the center, explaining it in simple terms, and applying scientific labels and scientific classification theory, we can draw the process of knowledge development.
It should be pointed out that Chinese and foreign book classification, including Chinese ancient book classification, is an enumeration classification, not a scientific logical classification; Its writing style and thinking orientation are similar, or the essence is the same, but the appearance is different, which is the professional skill of librarians, not the common sense tool mastered by readers. In fact, when readers enter the library stacks, they don't look for books according to the call number, but they are still in a perceptual state by experience, and we can't ignore its disadvantages. When mankind enters the 2 1 century, when general logic becomes universal knowledge, when open lending becomes the normal mode of library operation, and when knowledge grows rapidly, it is our professional, moral and historical responsibility to re-compile the worldwide scientific book classification and return it to readers.