On the 18th of March, we, as a TOK class, did a very intriguing activity. The assignment seemed fairly simple, but, in truth, it really was not. In groups of three, the activity given was to classify objects that were in the front of the class on a desk. Objects included stuffed animals, flashlights and even matches. The guidelines we were given were simple: Every object should be in a classification group, every group had to have at least two objects and no object could belong to more than one group. As you might have guessed, people in the class struggled to make an effective classification system. My group and I wanted to do some kind of fun and different classification for different objects. Easier said then done. However, the most interesting part of this activity was not the struggle each group was going through, but the end results. All groups had different classifications, and if they had the same one, different objects would be in that group for different people. This was fascinating, at least for me. How could a simple activity transform into a such complicated "mess"? As we had learned before, different people have different schemas, thus having different ways of perceiving the world, which would, most likely, lead us, humans, to different ways of classifying things. So, in this very basic classification activity we did in class, we could easily see how classification could link with knowledge, as it relates to previous ways of knowing, such as perception.
In our books, there is a main idea about the ways of knowing and the areas of knowledge. The idea states that the ways of knowing, such as memory and faith, are all interconnected as lots of times you use them at the same time. Also, that the ways of knowing help us decipher the areas of knowledge, like mathematics and social sciences, and vice-versa. So, when we say that classification is a demonstration of our ways of knowing, as it shows how different people would group things, it uses our areas of knowledge to do so. Hence, classifications are a direct representation of ways of knowing and areas of knowledge, and so have a lot to do with knowledge itself.
In one of my past subject areas there was a very clear example of classification. Last year I took Biology, where classification is key to the subject as a whole. For every living thing there are categories, sub-categories, sub-sub categories, etc. I remember really clearly the mnemonic that was used to remember the classification of living things: Kings Play Chess On Fine Grass Silk (KPCOFGS). Which stands for the following: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. Each of them are sub categories of living organisms and within them there are more categories. It is in fact very neat.
Classification is also around all over the world today. Also, there is a lack of consensus in some classifications around the globe as well. For instance, when categorizing terrorism and terrorists, many different states may consider different organisations and people to be terrorists. There is such lack of agreement with the definition that the biggest diplomatic organization in the world, the UN, has no official definition for terrorism.
All in all, we can see how classification affects our daily lives, touching current discussions and different areas and ways of knowledge. After all the explanation given in this blog, we can affirm that there has to be at least a bit in common between classification and knowledge. Thus, classification has to do with knowledge.
I agree with what you said. Classification obviously has to do with knowledge. We use knowledge, either experience or what we already know, to categorize certain things. For example, I categorized the stirring coffee stick as something to do with drink or food (eatable), because I know that in Brazil, we use it to stir the sugar in the coffee. However, for other people, such as Americans, they wouldn't know through their knowledge what is the utility of the piece of wood. Therefore, we use what we know to classify certain things, just like what you said.
ReplyDelete