Subtract and classify!

This article presents a philosophical analysis of the application of the “quantum” metaphor to scientific classification and taxonomy. Its central inquiry is whether the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics provides a valid analogy for the transition of scientific knowledge and objects from an uncertain, diffuse state to one of rigorous classification and measurement. The authors examine the viewpoint of Evgeniy V. Maslanov, who posits scientific classifiers as unique measurement tools that “collapse” a space of uncertainty to establish strict taxonomies. This concept is contrasted with the system-communicative approach, which holds that all classification is ultimately a product of the observer's perspective. Through examples from disciplinary differentiation in science, the authors demonstrate that processes for identifying “natural kinds” are inextricably linked to the growing normative power of taxonomies. Classifiers do not simply record a preexisting order; they actively constitute it, functioning as regulatory tools within scientific communication. Consequently, classification is subject to double contingency: prior to any measurement, one must define what is to be measured and how, while the act of measurement itself influences the object, delineating the boundaries of its possible descriptions. The article further explores the normative character of taxonomies, which codify a “collectively binding truth” and subsequently influence the distribution of social authority, financial resources, and institutional recognition. Thus, the act of classification carries not only epistemic but also politico-ethical significance. The authors conclude that the “collapse of the wave function” metaphor holds substantial heuristic potential for understanding the nature of scientific classification, wherein “natural kinds” emerge solely as outcomes of conventional and institutional agreements within the scientific community, their perceived rigidity always constrained by the contingency of the observer. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References