To categorize is to determine reality

It is standard practice to categorize things in accordance to what they have in common. We normally think of a category as being a container in which things that are essentially the same are contained. This represents our common folk theory of category and it is also our principal technical theory of category.

These theories are not entirely incorrect but SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has shown this theory to be far too simple in its comprehension of this important aspect of human thought.

SGCS has introduced a new theory of categorization; it is called prototype theory.

There is perhaps no aspect of thought more important than that of how a creature categorizes kinds of things. The life of the tadpole and the banker is often at risk because the creature has failed to categorize properly. All creatures must at least distinguish eat from no eat and friend from enemy.

Categorization is primarily automatic and unconscious. Humans categorize all things both concrete and abstract. A traditionally Western philosophical view of categorization was a priori and given little thought. But now, since the empirical studies of Eleanor Rosch, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, specializing in cognitive psychology, all domains of knowledge have begun a more serious study of this matter.

Rosch argues that if all members of a category share the same common properties then none can be a better example of the category than any other. Secondly she argues that if categories are defined by the properties inherent in each member then categories must be independent of those who do the categorization.

Rosch and others observed that empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that categories have best examples, i.e. they have prototypes. Furthermore human capacities play a role in categorization.

“Prototype Theory, as it is evolving, is changing our idea of the most fundamental of human capacities—the capacity to categorize—and with it, our idea of what the human mind and human reason are like.�

In this century philosophy and others have viewed reason as a mechanical manipulation of abstract symbols which are meaningless in them self. This has led the first generation of cognitive science to adopt the Artificial Intelligence mode of thinking; thinking that the mind emulates in some fashion the computer.

Since we reason not only about individual things but also about generalizations and abstract ideas categorization is crucial to all aspects of reasoning. The accepted view of reason as being disembodied, i.e. not affected by bodies, comes with an implicit theory of categorization. “It is a version of the classical theory in which categories are represented by sets, which are in turn defined by the properties shared by their members.�

Contemporary prototype theory challenges this classical view. Prototype theory hypothesizes that “human categorization is essentially a matter of both human experience and imagination—of perception, motor activity, and culture on one hand , and of metaphor, metonym, and mental imagery on the other…To change the very concept of a category is to change not only our concept of the mind , but also our understanding of the world.�

Quotes from “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind� by George Lakoff

It seems to me that differentiation ( I'm using this term instead of categorization) is a methodology useful towards movement. Let me explain before being blasted here.

Categorization is always arbitrary. Take taxonomy for example. The Linnaeus
system, which is the most commonly used, organized organisms according to similar structures. We have all those nice categories, starting from Kingdom, all the way down to species. But the only non-arbitrary distinction is species.
Thats it. We can identify and classify in many ways, but cannot ever prove that two species form a clade. In fact, there are other ways of organizing taxonomies that are just as credible, such as by DNA evidence, or even according to their uses to humans as the early East Indian cultures did.
Now, my point is that these categories are useful. No doubt about it. We can identify and support the likely evolutionary pathways, or if one doesn't like evolution, we can at least look for interrelatedness.

Alternatively, moving Away from differentiation is often the goal and useful in different ways. Buddhism for example, could be defined as the moving away from our own categorization/assumptions about existence. Even the definition of an organism can be quite blurry. Because a worker bee itself cannot provide itself with a state of homeostasis (in terms of home/ food), cannot reproduce, and is entirely interdependent upon the hive, a hive can really be seen as a single organism, rather than a social interaction.
Well, if we extend this idea, humans are interdependant upon plants, sun, everything in our environments. So where does one draw the line? Well, the line is arbitrary. I am not one of my cells, but I am not NOT my cells.

Or if you don't like this "arbitrary line" idea, one could simply refer to Descartes. Basically, how can we make up all of these categories and distinctions when we can't so much as provide evidence that our senses are providing real information? The problem with Descartian thinking, is that it eliminates our ability to "stand on the shoulders of giants." If we can't so much as differentiate one bee, from the hive, how can we possibly increase our understanding of the world and exude our will upon it?

So to summarize what I'm saying simply: Categorization is entirely arbitrary, but provides us with a means of progression. Moving away from categorization is essential to seeing the forest, not just the trees, and can lead to non-arbitrary understandings.

I'll drag this out a bit longer by providing examples where categorization is detrimental. Racism is the first that comes to mind. If one honestly listens to some of the supports, racism is "true." It really can be supported, be it by statistical studies of IQ levels, statistical studies of crime rates, and even simple person observation. Now don't misunderstand me for a minute. I am in no way condoning racism as its not my truth. But, is it really ignorant to consider the data at hand and to create categories accordingly? I can provide arguements against this data, such as IQ tests being designed in ways that are culturally biased, or a sociological perspective as to the causes of crime, which act more strongly upon those that are poor and oppressed, but regardless of cause the data still says certain things. So depending on how one categorizes, the "movement" outcome is very different. Now the flipside, non-categorization is equally detrimental at times. If we simply choose not to make distinctions such as race, it prevents movement towards solving issues. Their exist many programs meant to bridge the social divide in education between the white majority, and minorities. These programs are functional and useful. (or at least some, many have shown very bad track records but are still used amazingly enough. Nothing more than political lip service) I agree, we are all human. I agree that persecution based on race is a horrible thing. However ignoring statistically supported evidence that certain races are less educated, and commit more violent crimes is unacceptable as well. While racism is supportable, absolutely justifiable according to the data at hand, is that really the direction we as humans want to take? Whether certain groups are "better" or "worse" is just another arbitrary category, but one with dire consequences.

So, I'm not really trying to open a race debate. Please understand that I providing an alternative viewpoint, that is supportable. It is not one that I support mind you. My point lies in asking, can we hold both a generalized AND categorized viewpoint simultaneously? Can we see the trees, and the forest?

Cassox

I agree generally with what you are driving at.

Isn't there a difference between categorization and taxonomy?

Philosophy considers categorization to be essential to determining what is reality, certainly we need a means to determine reality that is not completely arbitrary. This all leads me to a conclusion.

We lack the vocabulary required to discuss this issue of reality cogently. Our views in this matter are undergoing a dramatic change; common sense views of the world, supported by objectivism philosophy, are being challenged by SGCS. It will probably take a few generations before this matter is sorted out and therein we can see the weakness of a culture that places great value on technology but little value on intellectual sophistication.

Darwin informs us that when a species fails to adapt to its environment that species is in danger of extinction. Such is the case for the human species. We have created a technological capacity to rapidly change our environment but we have not the intellectual sophistication to comprehend the problems created by this rapid change, the evidence of this problem can be seen in this particular matter.

Oh, yeah. There is a difference. I was using taxonomy as an example only. I agree that categorization is absolutely essential. I'm simply trying to point out that its often more beneficial to seek a generalized pattern, than a specific. Both are a type of category, and both are necessary. As you stated though, humans
are having difficulty to comprehend the larger issues. I think these larger issues are generalized issues, not specific. People worry about the finite detail categories because that is where we live. We live in our respective microcosms, but are ignoring the macro.

Another quick thought on this: bifurcation as categorization. Think of how people categorize things as "right" and "wrong" with no middle ground. This is a failing categorizational system.

Also, I forget the name of it, but there is a common logical fallacie that is when someone sees an issue as choosing between two courses of action, when there are thousands of possible outcomes.
What would you say about these? I guess that this is as the Prototype theory says, categories that need to be changed in order to change ones conception of the world?

I would say that the fallacy you speak of might be called the"optional illusion" fallacy.