So that we can take this discussion further, there is a certain amount of foundational background knowledge that we need, and Wikipedia sums it up well enough for our purposes.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world, although the term is not easily defined. Traditionally, metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms:
"What is there?"
"What is it like?"
A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist or a metaphysician. The metaphysician attempts to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, e.g., existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into the basic categories of being and how they relate to each other. Another central branch of metaphysics is cosmology, the study of the totality of all phenomena within the universe.
Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. The term science itself meant "knowledge" of, originating from epistemology. The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence. The study of metaphysics is rejected by natural science.--Wikipedia, "Metaphysics" accessed 11 August 2012
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Worthwhile take-home points from this summary, so that we're all operating from the same knowledge base:
-
Metaphysics has been an established branch of philosophy for centuries, and has traditionally treated questions such as "What is there?" and "What is it like?"
-
Other uses of the term "metaphysical" came on the scene later.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Source: "NEW AGE SPIRITUALITY: Metaphysics meets Science and Religion..." http://www.metaphysics-for-life.com/new-age-spirituality.html accessed 11 August 2012
You can see why mystics and spiritualists use the term--the discipline is about studying what exists, and they are making claims about things that exist in non-material non-physical ways.
However, there is nothing inherent in the term "metaphysics" itself that means non-material non-physical things have to exist.
As long as we're clear on that matter, and aware of the fact that people use that same word to mean different things, we can avoid some of the most common misunderstandings.
-
Just as philosophy has the "child" metaphysics, metaphysics is itself the "parent" of ontology--the branch of metaphysics that deals with entities (things that exist), the properties or qualities they possess, and the ways they interact with each other.
-
Science grew out of philosophy, and eventually split with it, because science developed the scientific method--an empirical, or tangible, way of testing ideas about the material physical universe.
We've seen several splits like this through history:
1. the science of chemistry arose from, and then split with, the mystical doctrines of alchemy.
2. Astronomy's origins lie in astrology, but astronomy does not accept astrology's non-empirical claims of cause and effect.
3. Geologists William Buckland and Adam Sedgwick set out in 19th-century Britain to find evidence to prove the Biblical story of the Great Flood; based on the evidence they found, they ended up revising their theory to fit their findings, which showed no such evidence.
And so forth, many times throughout history.
-
To say that natural science "rejects" metaphysics sounds harsh--and yet, if it's not empirical, it has nothing to do with science. It can't, because science deals with connecting the dots between entities and their relations in the material physical world. If it's not a physical entity, and it can't be investigated empirically, then it has nothing to do with science.
How to demonstrate the existence and reality of supernatural entities is a real conundrum--but since it's not in science's scope, scientists don't usually deal with such matters. If someone, scientist or non-scientist, claims to have solved the problem of how you could possibly carry out such a task, the burden of proof is on them to show that they have actually done what they claim to have done.
Some kinds of metaphysics as practiced by some people accept claims like this at face value--but science does not.
Ontology (from onto-, from the Greek ὤν, ὄντος "being; that which is", present participle of the verb εἰμί "be", and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.--Wikipedia: "Ontology" accessed 11 August 2012
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Worthwhile take-home points from this summary, so that we're all operating from the same knowledge base:
- "Ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist"
So, for example, craniosacral therapy's claims of articular mobility, respiratory mechanism, and craniosacral fluid's pulses and rhythms would all be legitimate questions for ontological enquiry.
As a branch of metaphysics, which does not deal with empirical enquiry, ontology also would not investigate it empirically.
Natural science, on the other hand, can and does investigate the question of existence empirically.
Anything for which someone makes a claim that it exists is fair game for ontological and natural science enquiry as to the reality and the nature of that existence.
- "and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences
"Philosophy is the parent of metaphysics, which is the parent of ontology" and "Ontology is a child of metaphysics, which is a child of philosophy" are examples of relating entities in a hierarchy.
- "subdivided according to similarities and differences" brings the idea of taxonomy into the picture, so we'll put off discussing that aspect of ontology until we've had a chance to introduce taxonomy.
In computer science and information science, an ontology formally represents knowledge as a set of concepts within a domain, and the relationships among those concepts. It can be used to reason about the entities within that domain and may be used to describe the domain.
In theory, an ontology is a "formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualisation". An ontology renders shared vocabulary and taxonomy which models a domain with the definition of objects and/or concepts and their properties and relations.
Ontologies are the structural frameworks for organizing information and are used in artificial intelligence, the Semantic Web, systems engineering, software engineering, biomedical informatics, library science, enterprise bookmarking, and information architecture as a form of knowledge representation about the world or some part of it. The creation of domain ontologies is also fundamental to the definition and use of an enterprise architecture framework.--Wikipedia, "Ontology (Information science)" accessed 11 August 2012
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Worthwhile take-home points from this summary, so that we're all operating from the same knowledge base:
-
An "ontology" is a very useful data structure or knowledge structure in information science and knowledge representation. Although its name comes from a subdiscipline of philosophy, it's not the same thing--the two words are homonyms, or two different meanings for words that otherwise look and sound the same.
Homonyms are going to cause us trouble in clarifying knowledge and communicating that knowledge with each other--knowing that fact in advance will help us handle it when confusion does come up.
-
Ontology knowledge structures contain information about the entities that exist in a given domain of knowledge (such as the examples in anatomy and biology that we'll look at here), as well as providing vocabulary about those entities, and about relationships among those entities.
-
Ontology knowledge structures are formal--they follow standard forms that they specify--and they are explicit, not leaving important knowledge unsaid or undescribed. In this way, they promote communication, by focusing on the content of the message, rather than forcing the user to figure out unfamiliar structures, or puzzle out what important things have been left unsaid.
- Ontology knowledge structures explicitly draw on taxonomy, so next, we'll treat what that is.
By the way, Jacobs is a step ahead of us on this--she already saw taxonomy coming:
I really do think it amounts to a taxonomic error on the part of anatomists. I'm calling them on it, right here.
...
all because of a careless slip of taxonomic nomenclature stemming from the dissection habit anatomists have of slicing this blubber layer right off so as to get to viscera...
So let's proceed to taxonomy, so that we're all playing in the same key (cheers, Carol Lynn Chevrier!)
Taxonomy (from ancient Greek τάξις taxis, arrangement, and νομία nomia, method) is the academic discipline of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups. Each group is given a rank and groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a super group of higher rank and thus create a hierarchical classification. The groups created through this process are referred to as taxa (singular taxon).--Wikipedia, "Taxonomy" accessed 11 August 2012
Worthwhile take-home points from this summary, so that we're all operating from the same knowledge base:
- "the academic discipline of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups"
Defining groups on the basis of existence and shared characteristics and giving names to those groups--the act of taxonomic classification--clearly fits into what we've been discussing about ontology and ontology knowledge structures, but Wikipedia's definition is too narrow here.
Taxonomy is not limited to biological organisms, although that is an area where it is heavily used.
For example, trying to figure out whether the giant panda was a bear or a procyonid (raccoon relative, like the red panda**) was a big question in the mid-to-late 20th century, until molecular evidence (such as genes involved in producing hemoglobin) demonstrated that they were definitely bears (Mayr E. Uncertainty in science: is the giant panda a bear or a raccoon? Nature. 1986 Oct 30-Nov 5;323(6091):769-71. PMID: 3774006).Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.![]()
But taxonomy is not limited to those zoological usages. It is a method that can be used to classify anything--we're going to use it to classify anatomical structures shortly, and we've been using it to classify branches of philosophy as parents and children of each other. We'll finish this post with an example of how a team in Seattle used taxonomy to classify massage techniques, and we'll look at what they gained from that classification.
So we'll rewrite the definition to make it more accurate and inclusive (and I'll try to remember to let Wikipedia know to update their entry, maybe by becoming an editor, or at least by contacting one):
"the academic discipline of defining entities on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups"
where an "entity" is something that we can deal with scientifically, since we can empirically detect its existence in the material physical universe.
Let's finish this post by looking at an example of how taxonomy has already been used in MT, and that should give us a firm footing to proceed from to get back to resolving the anatomy questions that originally kicked off this discussion.
** Red pandas are now classified in their own category, separate from raccoons, on the basis of better evidence than we had in the middle of the 20th century, when this question was being hotly contested. The illustration reflects the hierarchy that was in use at that time. In 1995, on the basis of mitochondrial DNA, red pandas were shown to be relatively close to raccoons, yet not in the same family.
Sherman's team in Seattle developed a taxonomy for describing massage treatments. Now that we've sync'ed up on taxonomy, the abstract should be pretty straightforward to read.
Sherman KJ, Dixon MW, Thompson D, Cherkin DC. Development of a taxonomy to describe massage treatments for musculoskeletal pain. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2006 Jun 23;6:24. PMID: 16796753 PMCID: PMC1544351 Free PMC Article
BACKGROUND: One of the challenges in conducting research in the field of massage and bodywork is the lack of consistent terminology for describing the treatments given by massage therapists. The objective of this study was to develop a taxonomy to describe what massage therapists actually do when giving a massage to patients with musculoskeletal pain.
METHODS: After conducting a review of the massage treatment literature for musculoskeletal pain, a list of candidate techniques was generated for possible inclusion in the taxonomy. This list was modified after discussions with a senior massage therapist educator and seven experienced massage therapists participating in a study of massage for neck pain.
RESULTS: The taxonomy was conceptualized as a three level classification system, principal goals of treatment, styles, and techniques. Four categories described the principal goal of treatment (i.e., relaxation massage, clinical massage, movement re-education and energy work). Each principal goal of treatment could be met using a number of different styles, with each style consisting of a number of specific techniques. A total of 36 distinct techniques were identified and described, many of which could be included in multiple styles.
CONCLUSION: A new classification system is presented whereby practitioners using different styles of massage can describe the techniques they employ using consistent terminology. This system could help facilitate standardized reporting of massage interventions.
The benefits they envision of an MT taxonomy--standardized reporting of massage interventions--would, if realized, promote communication among MTs and other stakeholders of massage, including clients for communicating expectations and outcomes, other healthcare providers for referrals, third-party reimbursers for demonstrating value of interventions, and more.
Presumably, this clarity of communication could potentially extend to questions of anatomical reasoning as well.
Now that we share a knowledge base about ontology and taxonomy, we'll extend and apply that knowledge base to Jacobs' questions about anatomy.