A possible classification of the geosciences

Geofontm

l/1970

A Possible Classification of the Geosciences Zur Ordnung der Erdwi~enscha~en Essai de classification des sciences de la terre

E. ~INKLER,

Ziirich*

Summary: In the course of the progressive specialisation of science(s) new groupings are also emerging at last. One of these is the assenblage of earth sciences, which unites chiefly those disciplines of the inorganic Earth. On the other hand, an attempt is made here to demonstrate that most biological and anthropological disciplines and - naturally - geography/geographies equally belong to this group. Furthermore, a Mturul classification of these is attempted, taking as it’s starting point an inventory of the existing branches of learning, and particularly the specialist gee-disciplines (geophysics, geomorpholo~, geopolitisc etc.) and the geographies proper (physiogeo~aphy, anthro~geo~aphy etc.) They are all viewed in facts-spank-ternary dimensions. The subsequent construction of a provisional system builds upon the hierarchy of terrestrial phenomena which extends from the elementary particles, through simpler structures to the whole Earth. Corresponding to these is the gradation from elementary to complex disciplines, between which bridge disciplines, above all the specialist gee-sciences (geomorpholo~, geobotany etc.), are interposed. This is an open system to which new disciplines may at any time be added or from which older ones may be removed. This proposed expansion of the geosciences also makes feasible, in the author’s view, a natural classification of the sciences as a whole, which will - obviously - always remain problematical.

Zu~menfas~n~: Im Zuge der fortschreitenden Spezialisierung der Wissenschaft(en) entstehen nicht zuletzt such Neu~uppieru~en. Eme solche ist die Scharung von ~owi~nsc~ten, bei welchen vornehm~ch Disziplinen von der anorganiscken Erde zu~mme~eschlossen werden. Hier wird demgegenilber zu zeigen versucht, dao, zu ihnen nicht minder die meisten biologischen und anthropologischen Disziplinen und - naturgem% - die Geographic(n) gehdren. Dariiber hinaus wird eine natiirlicke Ordnung derselben erstrebt, die von einem Inventar der bestehenden Wissenszweige, vor allem von den Fach-Geodisziplinen (Geophysik, Geomorphology, Geopolitik usw.) und den eigentlichen Geographien (Phy~ogeo~aphie, Ant~o~g~~aphie usw.) ausgeht. Sie alle sind in Schick-~umlichzeitlichen Dimensionen gesehen. Das an~h~e~end errichtete vorldufiie System baut auf der Hiemrchie der terrestrischen Ptinomene auf, die von den Elementarpartikeln iiber einfachere Gefuge bis zur Gesamterde reicht. Ihnen entspricht such die Stufung von Elementar- bis zu Komplexdisziplinen, zwischen die sich Btickendisziplinen, vor allem die Geofachwissenschaften (Geomorphologie, Geobotanik usw.) einschalten. Es handelt sich urn ein offenes System, dem sich jederzeit neue Disziplinen einfugen, oder aus dem sich &here ausgliedern lasscn. Mit der vorgenommenen Erweiterung der Geowis~n~haften ermoglicht sich, so scheint dem Verfasser, such eine natilrliche Ordnung der Wissenschaften im ganzen, die - selbstredend - immer Problem bleiben wird.

Resume: Dans la voie de la specialisation croissante des sciences apparaissent aussi de nouveaux groupements. L’un d’eux est l’ensemble des sciences de la terre, parmi lesquelles on associe de preference les disciplines purement geophysiques. Ici l’on cherche au contraire i montrer que ne leur appartiennent pas moins la plupart des disciplines bioiogiques et anthropologiques et, naturellement, la ou les gcographie(s). De plus est tent6 de ces sciences une classification naturelie qui part d’un invent&e des branches actuelles du savoir, avant tout des geosciences specialides (geophysique, gcomorphologie, geopolitique, etc.) et des geographies proprement dites (physique, humaine, etc.). Toutes sont considcrces dans leurs caracteres propres et leurs rapports spatio-temporels. Le systime provisoire obtenu est b&i sur la hierurckie des phcnomcnes terrestres, qui conduit des particules Blementaires a des structures simpies et flnalement & la pla&te entibre. I1 en est de mdme de la gradation allant des disciplines Blementaires aux disciplines complexes entre lesquelles s’inscrent les disciplines-pants avant tout les disciplines specialisees (gcomorphologie, geobotanique, etc.). I1 s’agit d’un systeme ouvert dans lequel ii tout moment peuvent etre ins&es de nouvelles disciplines et d’ou d’autres, vieillies, peuvent etre exclues. Cet Blargissement propose des sciences de la terre rend aussi possible, selon I’auteur, une classification naturelle des sciences en general qui, cvidemment, demeure toujours problcmatique.

* Prof. Dr. E. WINKLER, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule, Institut fl Landesplanung, Zurich, Switzerland.

9

10

The evolution of the sciences is known to be marked by two apparently contradictory tendencies and developmental directions. Possibly the more conspicuous of the two at present is that towards intensive specialisation. Ironically one could almost characterize this as general disintegration, yet it is thanks to this trend that we possess not only a growing and very w&able detailed knowledge of reality but at the same time an increasing ~racticff~mastery of nature. Counteracting this to a certain extent - not merely in the intention of neutralizing negative symptoms of specialization are efforts to group or regroup the sciences. The main purpose of this is presumably both the gaining of (renewed) oversight and intensified cooperation and unity in the comprehension of reality. One of the measures adopted to further concentration and which has become particularly signifcant, is the incorporation of the concrete or exact sciences (Realwissenschaften) into the group of earth-, bio- and human sciences. Although this was undertaken not least of all with the intention of overcoming the untenable ~chotomy naiad sciences Arts or cultural sciences, tie measure seems to correspond broadly with the present state of research as a whole, as is increasingly being indicated in practice. Attempts at systematization show, however, that this new grouping ist not without problems [ 11. An attempt will now be made to illustrate this, taking earth sciences as an example.

ged according to their compactness . . . the outer limit of the layer of air is so indefinite, that it cannot be taken as a basis for ascertaining the actual configuration of the Earth. It is, however, itself determined by the surface of the Earth, with which human life and the life of all organisms is associated. The domain of the Earth, in which this world of organisms is found, we call the biosphere. It lies where the lower limit of the atmosphere meets the upper surface of the continents and oceans” [ 21. In this formulation, for which there are numerous parallels, the water surface, the layer of air and the layer of life (including the anthroposphere i. e. the human biosphere) are apparently and without reservation regarded as belonging to the Earth, or rather to the terrestrial body. In fact, KETTNER even considers them to be major components. The totality of tisgeosphere, which may also be grouped more simply into core- and layer-spheres, really forms not merely a ~atic-mo~holo~c~-~uctur~ unit but also a natural disc-fictions unit. As is obvious from KETTNER’S statement, it is indeed a very complex structure scarcely allowing sharp or absolute differentiation from other units - e. g. from the rest of the solar system or from the universe m general. Its individual parts or components (the geospheres) appear, nevertheless, to be so intensely, even inseparably, linked together that the whole does in fact stand out against the general environment as something special, as a unique and individual planet. If, on the other hand, the terrestrial body is referred to as Earth (sensu strictis&no), in isolation from the remaining geospheres, this does not alter the fact that it is this body together with its layers ~~pheres in the narrow sense) which forms the proper

That each attempt to classify must be linked with the objects it is intended to classify, presumably requires no further comment. The initial question must therefore examine what is understood by earth sciences (geosciences, Geowissenschaften, Erdw~n~~ften, sciences de la terre). The problems already begin here, as will now be demonstrated. First of all they concern the ambiguity of the concept Earth. Without attempting to provide a complete inventory of meanings, it Using this definition as a basis, it would seem natural to is clear that this ambiguity extends from the meaning of regard as sciences of the Earth not only disciplines of the surface soil through soil, land and mainland to our planet terrestrial body and its lithospherical layer (lithosphere) but itself. In order to avoid a series of isolated discussions, also those branches of science, which are concerned with fruitless because of their illimitability, comments will be the hydrosphere, the atmosphere as weN as the biosphere confined exclusively to the last-named conceptual term, so (incl. anthroposphere). This view marks an approach towards that difficulties need not be feared. This term alone provides geophysics insofar as the latter is not only concerned with questions enough, which will now be taken up. the terrestrial body but moreover also includes the hydroWhat is to be understood, we may ask, by the planet Earth? sphere and the atmosphere in its field of research, In other More precisely, which domains belong to Farth and which words there exist hydrospheri~ physics and atmosphe~c~ sciences may therefore be correspon~~y referred to as physics (hydrophysics, hydrology; atmospherical physics, earth- or geosciences? The answer to this question should, meteorology), both of which qualify fully as component doubtlessly, also offer the possibility of designing a system, disciplines of geophysics. Analogously, geochemistry is a classification, for itself. divisible into branches, whose object is the investigation of substances and their transformation in the atmo-, hydroA widely accepted formulation of the concept Earth, that of the Czech geologist R. KETTNER, states: “ The Earth (as and lithosphere (in Space and time). No-one will dispute one of the nine planets of our solar system) consists of one that in other respects geophysics and geochemistry consolid and structurally complex body (the Earth in the narrow stitute earth sciences. Exactly the same is true of the sosense or the actual geophere), which is to a great extent called geological disciplines, from geology and petrography covered by water (hydrosphere) and surrounded by a layer to mineralogy (incl. c~s~ography, crystal physics, crystal of air (atmo~here). These three major ~rn~o~ents are arran- chemistry, which indeed have recently tended to regard

11

themselves as being outside the earth sciences) and its component sciences. A modem movement in systematic scientific thought would, as is known, like to see particularly those disciplines named above incorporated into the group of earth sciences. Geography also belongs to this category. But this systematic school is inclined to think primarily in terms of the inorganic, p~ytioz~ branches i. e. geomorphoio~, climatology and hydrology ~~mo~ho~phy, climatic geography, hydrogeography). This is, in principle, justied by their argument that these sciences, held together by the common band of the inorganic nahtre of the objects studied, are also linked by their unify de doctrine. Furthermore, the precision of these sciences, in comparison with the remaining natural and exact sciences, is still claimed, although this assertion has now lost some of its validity. An apparently equally cogent argument insists that these sciences e. g. biology and human sciences, have already formed their own special groups and have separated off from the earth sciences. On the whole, therefore, practice indicates that those disciplines chiefly concerned with the inorganicnature of the Earth are grouped under the latter, and that these appear to be classifled alongside or on equal terms with the biological and the anthropological or human sciences. The question still arises, however, as to why biology and human sciences should not be ascribed to a group of earth sciences in the wider sense. The fact that all organisms, - whether they have developed on the Earth or not - locationally as well as functionally classisfied as part of the planet Earth, without whose component spheres ~tho~here, hy~o~here, atmosphere and Earth interior) they could in no way exist, would fully justify this perceptively critical and hence logical and scientific-systematic decision, if only it were not open to the counter-argument that numerous human sciences are not restricted objectively to the Earth (philosophy, theology etc.).

sciences.The list begins with those inorgmic ea& sciences, of which some have already been quoted. These comprise: geophysics geochemistry geology atmogeochemistry geochronology idylls geoelectrics, ge~le~trod~cs geogenY geohydrodynamics geohYdrology geocryologY geomagmatics geomechanics geometeorology geomorphography geomorphology geostatics geothermics hydrogeo~e~ hydrogeophysics These are disciplines which in part represent only pw?&rZ methods of oberservationor methods. The problem of the sub-, co- and supra-classification will here remain secondary and be dicussed only marginally or not at all. The following may be termed biologicarearth sciences: biogeochemistry biogeophysics geobiology g~biophy~cs geobotany geopedology geozonology geozoology (physical) geoanthropology i. e. that branch of physical anthropology devoted to the relationships of the human physis, in particular, the reces of the Earth, further phyto- and zoozijnology and corresponding ecologies inso far as they concentrate upon, or are confmed to, the relationships between organisms and the Earth.

This problem will be taken up again later. Attention will now be turned once more to the earth sciences in the wider sense. For the series of disciplines, which - themselves - use the name geosciences has by no means been exhausted with the branches of science mentioned so far. This must be completed in order to make possible an adequate discussion of the question concerning their system or classification. In Finally, in the domain of bud sciences,the following order to obtain a corresponding oversight, an attempt will terms are found currently: be made to build up an inventory of the existing disciplines geoanthropology which bear the syllable -ge- in their name. geoethnography or ethnology This inventory must remain incomplete due to lack of suffgeohistory geojurisprudence icient material, particularly since it is impossible to ascertain what possibilities exist for the formation of further such geolinguistics disciplines [ 31. Meanwhile, it should suffice for the compilgeomedicine ation of a naturalgrouping. For practical purposes the oversgeoeconometrics ight is based on the major categories of the exact sciences geoeconomy quoted at the being i. e. the earth-, bio- and human geo~~olo~ (geo~ap~c~ pa~olo~)

12

geopolitics

popsychology geosociology geostrategy geotEchnoIogy geotherapy etc. The factor common to all these ~~~i~ip~es, by no means all of which are as yet fuhy developed, is to be found in their mode of observation and therefore essentially in their methodology. With the exception of geology, geochemistry and geophysics, they question the way in which the objects of study are determined - either wholly or partly -by the harth; these objects are as a rule component parts of the Earth as a whole (relief forms, water bodies, plants, animals, culture areas). Attention is focussed, therefore, not upon the Earth as a whole but upon a constituent part. At the centre of interest lies not the Earth (as a whole or as complexes of spheres) but components (geofactors), namely components of the layers or these layers themselves. For this reason these disciplines are quite often called geu~aph~~a~ met~ds of obsenwtionof the socalled systemaEic sciences: geographical botany (geobotany), zoology (geozoology), economics (geoeconomics), politics (geopolitics) etc. This frequently caused confusion with the various disciplines constituting geography (proper). The latter of course adopts the reverse procedure. Attention is centred upon the landscape, the country (group of countries, continents, oceans etc.) or the landscape sphere (also called ~horo~here~~ ln this context it is a~~iatio~s~ ~mb~ations, or complexes of layers of the Earth and geofactors (geospheres in the narrow sense : litho-, hydro-, atmo-, phyto-, zoo-, and ~~o~~ere~ which are being studied. The central and basically exclusive question asked is: how and to what extent do these individual spheres and their components (plants, animals, water bodies, people, human activity etc.) contribute to the character of the various landscapes, or: how are landscapes collectively affected by all or some of these factors, and which landscape structures (forms, features etc.) arise from this? The number of individual or component disciplines required in order to answer these questions is already legion. They mu&ply even further with increasing specialization within science in general and within geography in particular. lack of space permits only the more ~~~~t to be mentioned here. They may be subdivided into two major groups: the group of gee-factor geographies and the group of geographies which are devoted to whole landscapes, The former group sub-divides further according to principles mentioned earlier. The component disciplines of physiogeogmphyinclude: soti-or pedogeo~phy ensure-geo~aphy upland- and key-geo~aphy @cl. mountain geography)

cave geography (speleology) hydrogeography with groundwater-, Karst.water, river-, lake-, ocean- and glacier-geography atmogeography, also meteorogeography etc. The component disciplines of b~oge~~phy include: @ant geography vege~tio~ geography zoo- or animal geography physical anthropogeography, ~t~o~lo~~ geography.

or racial

Humangeofactor-geogruphiesinclude, apart from anthropogeography (geography of man, human geography), population geography or demography dialect geography h%uage geography geography of religion with sacral- and cult-geography, missionary geography e~o~o~aphy cultural geography folklore - geography socio- or social geography medical geography economic geography agricultural geography geogmphy of farming geography of horticulture geography of fruit farming geography of viticulture geography of stock farming geography of fisheries geography of hunting mining geography geography of energy geography of occupations industrial or factory geography geography of productions geography of trade and distribution geography of consumption transport geography geography of land transport (roads, railways) ~~aphy of water transport geography of air transport postal geography geography of telegraphy, broadcasting arid television geography of tourism, health resorts Settlement geography geography of house types geography of farm types geography of villages geography of towns geography of special settlements (resident&& cult, communal etc.)

political geagraphy legat g@%raPhy admi&rative geography geagca&y of melioration technogeography (geography of en&eoring) geoesaphy of e geography of science Etc.

becomes ple~~~stic or tautologous, and is to be avof ded in the general interests of ~te~~~) [Gf.

one may perhaps fiid fault with the termino1ogic&ldlstinctions between the socalled gee-subject disciplines (geobotany, geopolitics) and geographies (botanical geography, politid ge~gmphy) because they seem strw and unavoidably pr+ voke confusion. In ma&y, however, this destinction is not only oo~etely clear and ~~~~~. It also corresponds Of geographies deal with land~~pe W&_&S- ~o~ap~s with methods of observation whioh actually exist, which are ScFlW~~~~~~~~ - the folk?w@ canbe died* basi~4.Q different from each other and which are esse&ir~ without apply& any &kal-lo&a3 order: in the interests of the ~~~tio~ of the ~~~~ objects kindscape stmcwti morphology studied by the earth sciences, Furthermore, their origins find landscape physiology considerable historic&l substantiation. One recalls landscape chorology A. HETTNER [7], who promoted this view more than anyone landscape ecology else and who referred iu turn to the IT&I&& zoologist landscape g;eneticsor chronology, which can be fur&r A. R. WALLACE (lg23-1913) asthe founder of this distincs÷d into: tion: WALLACE was responsiile for the antithesis of a XUOhistary of the hmdseape as a whole geography @imal geography) and a ge~zoology (geographi~~~o~aPhy eal zoolo&. The antithesis thus enjoys a Iong t~~~ and, for this and other cogent reasons, it should not prove dBIcuIt for the ap~tion to gain gradual acceptance;. A few d&@&es heve abrepdy become established, which on contemporary geography tie one hand represent more methodulogy than actual objet* geugraphy of the present day (the usual ~r~~~~ tive science, and on the other hand possess o@@arZcharacter. geography) Examples include godesy and geaetry, geonomy and gee= geography of the future fprognostic geography, also photogrammetry, 1. e. gwmathemrtics in the broader sense. geography of phmt@& They are all recogSxed 8s furthering the exact understtandiig and finatly of terrestrial conditions. For this reason their existence has principles of landscape class%cation (as typology [4]), hardly ever been quest&ted, a fate experienced by not a few taxonomyl the study of tidsqx types clr norms, but be made to the more recent di&pline of geustatistics which also the &&&ati~ of e~~~~rete,aids ~d~s~. similarly desemes a place among the exact sciences (or metbo= It should drips be added at this point that with&zland- dologies) accurding to the mode of operation. Finally it should not be forgotten that the term geosophy (gee-pMlr;tscape histuxy one can ~~~~ a sacalled h&tori& sophy, ch~o~phy~ reappears time and time aga& (this is geography, which, as distinct from the study of landhowever baknced by a philosophical geography, disciplines scape change, is concerned specifically with landscape which indicate attempts to dr3w the EZartb and its compoat particular periods in time i. e. crc;tr~c~~~&rthrough nent parts into the realm of metaphy~~s)~ It remains undelandscape history [5]. It is further noted - iu anticipation of eventual reproach - that both the methodology cided whether in the f’uture a m&geography will be ampted as special study of the common basis of geographic reguof geography and its Scientific history have been con&ties and potentialities. That dose relationships exist besciously avoided here. Also avoided was any reference tween all the named areas of knowledge, that they alI repreto the fact that, of course, all geosciences can - and sent mmwneats of a comprehensive earth s&en@, a kind of mustbe classified in terms of space and time as wel.las g~~fogy iu the broadest sense of the word, surely requires uo in terms of their factual eontent, as indicated by the specific explanation at this point LThe above inventq of latter (more synthetic) branches listed above, (landits ~o~~u~~s, now make possible the construction of a scape l&tory). No reference has been made to socalled systematic ~l~~~ti~. It appears expedient to provide applied or practical geography however. Tbe author is fast of ah a comparative, though of necessity cursory, desof the opinion that a applied fields of geqraphy do cription of these disciplines as a foundation for later commexist (and that these are of practical valm and hence ents. of gmat importance to mankind) but that these apptl&ions are rm longer - gmphy or - fogv, following on The account can be restricted to those features which are from the last point, that tkar.Y - namely: ~ZWV obsercommon to both and to those which are specific. One mmvation - itr geography as in the seienees generally - is prehensive statement may be made first of all :all earth to be seen as ~o~e~ond~g with the basis of theory sciences (and basically a3% sciences) possess considerable and practice; (whereby the term t~~~~~tt~~ ~~~~~ ~ormmn ~~c~~~j~ as well as differences in object,, from

14

which analogues and variations in procedure result (methods, methodframework, techniques). Let us begin with those common characteristics : all objects of the earth sciences possess particular dimensions (size-orders, values), particular static and dynamic structures (structure of the parts). All are fived in space and time (are found in areas), are - at least for the main part - areally extensive and, in terms of time, are permanent or transitory, progressive or regressive, faster or slower, continuous or discontinuous, etc., developing, and all exhibit individual and general qualities. Insofar as they seek to unterstand the objects studied in their full reality (and of this there is certainly no doubt) all earth sciences - possibly all sciences - are presented with the task of utilizing all feasible and necessary methods at their disposal. They therefore have to make both specialized and optimal use of thorough analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, of general (normative, eventually typological) and special (idiographic, individual), quantitative and qualitative, mathematical and verbal, static and dynamic, functional and non-functional, descriptive and explicative (causal, and fmal, also conditional), summative and systematic, abstract and concrete and other research methods. In this way first some then others are naturally able to dominate, according to the object of study. Similarly these disciplines (as empirical sciences) also share the absolute necessity of considering study methods which are simultaneously factual-substantial, spatial (regional) and temporal, or, relativistically expressed, factual-spatial-temporal. It is presumably superfluous to draw attention here to the fact that (as with the almost complete correspondence of me~od-fr~eworks), the tools of research must also be the same, for instance, word and number, statistics, graphical representation (diagrams, illustrations, maps, models etc.) and apparatus all constitute the equipment of the earth sciences. If the discussion is now moved from these common characteristics and focussed upon the differences in method across the various disciplines i. e. their specific characteristics, it is clear that the differences stem from the uniqueness of the objects. There now arise questions of coordination and suband supra-ordination. Although the Earth as a whole and its parts represent facet-spats-tern~~ physical forms with a high degree ofinterreMonship (since they have indeed developed from one another), these forms appear to be so highly differentiated in terms of size-order and degree of complexity (this need in no way imply the existence of implicit and absolute differentiation) that the procedure of analysis must provide a basis adapted to the many variations. To quote an example : the morphology of organisms (and organism constituents: organs, tissues, cells etc.) is essentially different from the morphology of crystals and minerals and likewise from the geospheres: the Earth‘s surface features, the human societies and social organisations, the landscapes and the whole Earth, even though it is basically, like the former, a science of formsor structures. Analogous examples

are the physiologies, ecologies, genetics (case histories) etc. All are limited - again and again - by the fundamental character of terrestrial phenomena, microscopic and macroscopic, which, statically (formel-materially) and dynamically (functionally) balanced against each other and (hierarchically) associated, are also correlated. In this context it may also be stated that differences as well as conformities in phenomena promote, through comparative studies, abiding impulses for progress towards a deeper and more highly differentiated knowledge. If in this context reference has been made to supra- and subordination, these are based upon a striking hierarchy or ranking of the individual domains of the earth sciences. This ranking is, above all, one of degrees of complexity; it extends from elementary terrestrial particles, through atoms and molecules, inorganic and organic elementmy units, (crystals, minerals, rocks, plants, animals, human individuals), associations (complexes : rock formations, water bodies, airmasses, plant and animal associations, human groups: societies) to (whole) terrestrial spheres: the Earth’s core, its mantle, litho-, hydro-, atmo-, phyto-, zoo, anthropo- and krrrdscape-spheres, finally culminating in the total Earth (total geosphere). As such this tank order is limited neither at the Zawer levels nor at the upper levels, At the upper levels, more exactly, in the direction of the cosmos, we are able to recognize further categories: the remaining stars, the planets and solar system, the galaxies, with the total universe remaining as unknown as the sub-elementary particles. Since we are merely concerned with the problems of the earth sciences, it is sufficient here to restrict ourselves to their objects. The nature of this hierarchy is such that it also determines the classifictation of this group of disciplines. They exhibit a corresponding rank order, which extends from the elementary Earth particles through the organisms and non-organisms to the total Earth, in other words from submiroscopical, microscopical, macroscopical, subgeospherical and geospherical to disciplines concerned with the whole Earth, as in the case of geophysics and geochemistry, and culminating in a globally orientated geo-biology. From this standpoint it is beyond question that most of the biosciences and human sciences (practically all insofar as they are concerned with the (only) known terrestrial organisms and human beings) are also to be regarded as earth sciences. In cogent and concrete terms, living things, human beings and human activities constitute elements of the Earth (in the wider but really basic sense of the term) no less than its inorganic structures: water, air-masses, the lithosphere. This fact has been expounded again and again by all eminent researchers in both the Arts and the sciences and strikingly formulated by F. RATZEL: “Man is a child of the Earth, not merely because he was born from the Earth, from earthly substances. He is not so merely for the more profound reason that the Earth was pregnant with man from the fast germ of organic life which she bore, onwards, so that now

15

everything created reflects man. Man appeared on Earth as a child in need of and capable of instruction, the Earth has reared him in the struggle with all her forces and realities, the general history of the Earth has become interwoven with man’s own history. . . As humanity now stands before us, it is the product both of its own history and of the Earth’s history. Both are indissolubly linked an wiIl remain so. Just as man did not appear until the Earth could already reflect upon a long history, so could he, the highest blossom on the tree of creation, likewise fade before the Earth has reached its eventide [ 81”. The removal of those sciences dealing with man and Iife from

the earth sciences could only be a question of expediency and the basic system of the earth sciences must appear more correctly and objectively as follows: ascribed to the earth sciences, of equel rank: inorganic, biological, anthropological disciplines. To these necessarily belong yet another group representing associations of these earth-units and in particular the regional disciplines : geography, or if one prefers the pluralistic approach, geographies. If these disciplines are first of all regarded factually, one can speak of a linear system of ranking. But since the corresponding disciplines of space and time are also to be incorporated, insofar as all objects of the earth sciences at the same time invole spatially and temporally structured - and ordered - concepts, the system of earth sciences is therefore at least three-dimensional. It represents a structured hierarchy of factual (systematic), spatial and temporal disciplines. There also exists an intermediate sector, indicated by the socalled geodisciplines in the narrower sense of the word, such as geobotany, geoeconomy, geopolitics, geomorphology, which to some extent forms a bridge between the elementary or basic sciences and the geogmphies It should be borne in mind that even this hierarchy shouId be regarded as an open system which must be incorporated into a system (factual-spatial-temporal) of more comprehensive, cosmic and eventually even more elementary sub-microscopic disciplines. Furthermore it must not be forgotten that abstract disciplines do exist alongside these socahed exact sciences (concrete disciplines), which investigate the most general laws of reality: cognition theory, logic, philosophy, general mathematics (mathematical logic) etc., which are most definitely not be omitted from a comprehensive n.&uraZclassification of the sciences. It cannot be doubted that these are no less eligible for inclusion. In this discussion, which is concerned exclusively with the earth sciences, these problems may be left aside (Fig. 1). Needless to say, the earth sciences can also be classified according to those groups named at the outset i. e. into inorganic, biological disciplines, or into sciences and Arts. Likewise an arrangement into factual-, spatial- and temporalsciences is completely plausible and possible and implies, for example, that all the spatial aspects of the hierarchy of

those disciplines observing factual objects: minerals, organisms, rocks, human societies, human works (settlements, economic structures etc.), would be grouped together as spatial sciences, just as the historical and genetic disciplines would be grouped as temporal sciences. A corresponding measure would merely have to take into account that alI building stones of the Earth - and this itself - are fact& spatial-temporal staticdynamic complexes, or rather phenomena, which, in order that their complex reality be comprehended, similarly require (synthetic) disciplines with a factual-spatial-temporal emphasis. In scientific practice one or other of these groupings will fmd application according to the focal point of the research carried out, so that there remains no reason for rivalry. The central problem implied in the foregoing considerations, the problem which should perhaps have been posed at the bewing, can now finally be raised and higbhghted. Have such attempts to reclassify or regroup the sciences any useful purpose? It may be permissable to allow the answer to be given by a prominent scientific methodologist, the philosopher P. TILLICH, who has expressed the answer superbly for all the sciences. In his paper L&USystem der Wissenschaften nach Gegenstciitdenund Methoden [9] he says, after raising th e question in the introduction: “Is it not extremely fruitless to build a science above the sciences, is this not mere formalism, which may arouse the interest of scholastic minds yet remains meaningless for living knowledge ? . . . Knowledge itself compels the construction of a system. . . and refutes the reproach of an empty formalism . . . It is of the greatest (factual) importance, how the subject areas are delimited from each other, which of these are accorded independence and which are not, how they are assembled and how they build upon one another. . . The significance of the system of the sciences will be even more deeply appreciated, if it is examined with the assumptions of the Kantian doctrine. It then becomes an expression of the system of the intellectual functions, and the structure of intellect besomes apparent from the different directions in which science finds an defines its subjects. . . As such the system of sciences becomes the arbiter in the methodological struggle for the same object; it not only determines boundaries but also determines the right to cross these boundaries; it therefore checks unjustified claims of individual sciences for undivided sovreignty; it brings to light hidden possibilities, it justifies cooperation between different sciences, involving different methodes; it is therefore not only regulating but also indicating the way. It is for all time an essential achievement of scientific self-appraisal; the sciences themselves, each within its own sphere desiring to encompass each individual element into the overall context, are thus prevented from facing each other in chaos and disarry. It is a task concerned with form but it is in no way formalism, but rather the living and thus often changing expression of the scientific consciousness of a particular age.”

Systemgeriist* der Wissenschaften (als Theorie(n) der Wissenschaft(en)

of realtity/relatities)

Core and mantle

Sublithospherology (core and mantle)

Biology Anthropology *** Zoology Botany Pedology Hydrology Inland hydrology Oceanography Geology (s. L) (lithospherology)

++

Geology

-

(s. str.)

t3 +-+ t-, H ++ t-J Geobiology (‘&o-anthropology Geozoology Geobotany Geopedology Geohydrology

c--f

++ C-, +-+ +-+ tf

Geometeorology

Meteorology or atmospherology ++

Geosciences

Elementary sciences

C&/sciences* *

Lithogeography***

Biogeography Anthropogeography Zoogeography Plant geography Pedogeography Hydrogeography

Climate geography

(Ceofactor) Geographies

Total GeographY or landscape spherology

Anthropology is interpreted here in the broadest sense, i. e. as including most of the Arts, social or cultural sciences. (Exceptions include, for example, theology, philosophy, whose objects and problems extend beyond the domain of geospheres).

This systematic framework tacitly assumes, that all geosciences comprehend their objects factually-spatially and temporally and also analytically synthetically, idiographically-nomothetically, descriptively and explicatively (causal-final), summatively-integratively, inductively-deductively etc., i. e. in terms of all possible scientific and vital aspects.

Since a comprehensive classification of sciences would have to include not onfy the names of all disciplines, but also all their concepts and principles, and since only a selection of sciences is presented here, reference is made therefore to a systematic framework.

Landscape-, regional or chorosphere

Troposphere Biosphere Anthroposphere Zoosphere Phytosphere Pedosphere Hydrosphere Inland hydrosphere Oceanosphere Lithosphere

Atmosphere (Stratosphere)

4 Special sciences (exact science s, concrete sciences) & Cosmology cosmologies

**** ~thogeogra~hy is here viewed comprehensively, whereby the lithosphere is interpreted in terms of form (morphogeography~ and of substances. it should also be noted that the socalled applied sciences have purposely been omitted here.

***

**

*

Geosphere (sj

H-J

(Component) branches (object areas)

General sciences ~~~~ (abstract, ideal sciences) Mathematics Logic (incl. mathematical logic) cognition theory

,’

0 Structure systCmatique* des sciences (comme thborie(s) de la(des) science(s)

l

0 Systematic framework* of the sciences (as theory/theories

Fig. 1

17

We were here less concerned with problems of arbitration. The task set was far more modest: on the one hand to examine the earth sciences rather more comprehensively as was previously the case, and on the other hand to suggest a clasScation for them which does not confine them within unidimensional and therefore inadequate schemata but rather acknowledges them as constituting an open system - open in every respect, and adapted to reality. This system should naturally heve embraced all relevant concepts and judgements and complex theses (axioms, hypotheses, themes etc.); within the above framework, however, only the outlines of a system can be presented. The purpose ot these considerations will have been fulfilled if only they are able to stimulate fresh thought on the subject.

of Gmth Sciences (1965 ff.), edited by FAIRBRIDGE, R. W. E. et al. New York, and DONNELY, T. H. (1963). 7%e Eurth Sciences. Chicago. These and other works, as well as the already num~ous journals, which are published chiefly in geological circles, consider the earth sciences mainly in terms of the inorganic earth sciences. The appearance of Geoforum with its more comprehensive approach is therefore most welcome. [2] KETTNER, R. (1958) Allgemeine Geologic, I. p. 1. Berlin. [3] The compilation was based upon subject lexica as well as general encyclopaedias, the names of which need not be given here as they are already familiar to the specialist. However the following is recommended as a useful source allowing swift reference to be made to the subjects mentioned here: Fin& Report on the Class& f&&ion of ~o~upki~l Books and Mups of the Inte~~~~ Geogmphiml Union, London 1964. [4] WINKLER, E. (1934) Was ist Geographic? Bildung, I, Fast. 5. pp. 13-14; WINKLER, E. (1938) Zur Rage der Allgemeinen Geogrophie. pp. l-32. Zurich; TROLL, C. (1950) Die geographische lands&aft und ihre Erforschung. Studium Generale, 3. pp. 163-181. Heidelberg; FOCHLER-HAUKE, G. (1959) GeofIraphie. Logisches System. pp. 267-272. Frankfurt. [S] For a recent work cf. JAGER, H. (1969) Historische Geogruphie. Braun~hwei~

References [l] For earlier attempts to classify the earth sciences compare e. g. v. RICHTHOFEN, F. (1903) Trkbkrifte und Richtungen der Erdkunde im neunezhnten Juhrhundert.Berlin. pp. 28 ff., and PENCK, A. (1927) Geography among the Earth Sciences. In: Rot. Am. Phil. Sot,, vol. 66, pp. 621-644. Of the more recent literature the following deserve mention: EncycZopcledia

[6] WINKLER, E. (1966) Zur Frage der Spezialisierung der GeofJraphie. GeographicaHelvetica, 21. pp. 11-83. [7] HETTNER, A. (1935) VergZeichendeUnderkunde, vol. N. pp. 159 ff. Berlin. [8] RATZEL, F. (1905) Die Menschheit als Lebenserscheinung Erde. In: Helmolts Weltgeschichte,I. pp. 63 ff. Leipzig.

der

[9] TILLICH, P. (1923) Dcls System der Wissenschuftennuch Gegens&&denund Methoden. pp. l-3. Cliittingen.