[Bell Historians] Tower Classification required

'Chris Pickford' c.j.pickford.t21@btinternet.com [bellhistorians] bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Mon Apr 11 16:22:44 BST 2016

It's worth remembering, I think, that classification of any sort is an
imprecise art - and, indeed, usually anything but objective in intent. 


There is little point in classification as an end in itself. It's really
only useful as a tool when attempting a breakdown to answer a particular set
of questions - and therefore categories within a classification are often
designed to reflect the nature of the analysis being undertaken.


What often happens is that a high percentage of cases will fit easily and
accurately into the range of classifications suggested - and the remainder
will be problematic because it's just not possible to devise a scheme (or
set of parameters) that is totally watertight and distinctive. Once you
start forcing things into categories to which they don't really belong, then
classification starts to fail.


Relevance to the discussion? Only a reminder that there are no fixed
categories, that we already know some of the possible divisions in this area
are problematic, and lastly that it will be most useful if there is a clear
purpose behind the analysis being undertaken.


Chris Pickford

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20160411/4fb976ef/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list