Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
As interpretations are important, there should be devices or means that can be adapted to
different organizational schemes that have hierarchies of classes that are different from those of
the system being devised. No one system can emphasize attributes or concepts that are equally
important for all perspectives. Classes (groups of soils) can be combined or separated in many
ways outside of the system, and a multicategorical system makes this possible. There can be a
group of Ñall soils having an aquic moisture regimeÒ in a separate scheme, even though they do
not exist as such in the present one.
We note the following stated objectives of a soil classiÝcation system:
¤ Remember signiÝcant characteristics of soils; mnemonics may be helpful.
¤ Use relationships to help synthesize knowledge.
¤ Show relationships among classes and categories to each other and to their environments.
¤ Enable predictions of behavior and responses to management.
¤ Group soils of similar genesis, or by other desired concepts.
¤Give identity to otherwise unidentiÝed individuals of a population.
¤ Provide groups that can be regrouped or subdivided for applied objectives.
¤ Abstract concepts of order in nature.
¤ Provide classes that have real counterparts in nature (mainly as mappable soil bodies).
¤ Component bodies in nature must be pertinent to applied objectives.
¤A system that can be applied consistently by competent scientists working independently needs
to be objective in the sense that the system uses the properties of soils, and not the beliefs of the
classiÝer.
¤
Group soils according to a maximum number of common properties that reÞect a common genesis.
There are so many variables in deÝnitions, purposes, and in concepts that chaos can be the only
result. Nevertheless, there have been many classiÝcations that have worked well for their intended
purpose, and have met their objectives with varying degrees of success. In many places, conscious
and unconscious biases creep in and prejudice the future.
MINIMIZING PREJUDICE FOR THE FUTURE
A classiÝcation scheme is based on experiences that obtained facts and developed relationships.
Consequently, it is subject to inadequacies of that experience. The base of specialized knowledge
now involves some 20,000 scientiÝc journals (Yaalon, 1999). A soil classiÝcation system is a human
contrivanceÐthus it is subject to inadequacies of the human mind. It is said that geniuses have
habits of thought that constantly involve alternative solutions, employ innovative and continual
questioning, and have more dead ends than most synthesizers of soil knowledge. Thus there are
many possibilities for future information and the obsolescence of what exists today.
As we draw closer to accepting a classiÝcation as a truth, the concepts on which it is constructed
are accepted as facts, and then we resist change. Research in soil science may be molded in the
same patterns as previous research efforts. Small incremental conÝrmations of the same kind of
information obtained in the same or similar ways lull us into complacence. Observations of soils,
landscapes, interactions, and relationships tend to be limited to the features that were known
previously. Many years passed before fragipans were recognized as possible pedological features.
The analysis of empirical relationships is often limited to those noted in the past. Even our
explanations of new facts and hypotheses may be channeled into the patterns of the past.
The probabilities of accepting or rejecting facts and relationships suggest that both classiÝcation
and understanding are not truths. New experiences and facts are a certainty, and a classiÝcation
scheme attempts to organize current understanding. Such understanding is largely composed of
explanations that relate unfamiliar things with familiar things. Genetic concepts and hypotheses
are based mainly on what we believe are cause-and-effect correlations; however, such relationships
