An Appreciation of Britannica’s Outline of Knowledge

Introduction

Imagine that you are the captain of a sailboat in the middle of the ocean; you have an adventurous spirit, and there are many places that you want to explore. There is only a small problem that is, you don’t have a map. And, since you’re in the middle of the ocean, the vastness of the waters overwhelms you. The constant crashing of new waves into your boat makes you focus on them, while you are left disoriented.

Nevertheless, since you knew that the journey was going to be challenging, you brought along world renowned ‘experts’ in your ship: an astronomer; a meteorologist and an oceanographer.

‘Let’s go to the Philippines’ you command your crew. This sounds like a simple command, but soon after each one of the experts becomes involved in a discussion on exactly how to get there. The astronomer is sure that the stars indicate that you should sail northwards. The meteorologist disagrees and says you should go towards the East, because of the incoming air currents. And the oceanographer argues energetically: ‘no, if we go eastwards, we will crash into underwater rocks and sink to the bottom of the ocean.’

Since these are all world renowned ‘experts’ in their fields, each one of them firmly believes that he is right. They all see reality only through their own lenses. Each of them focuses on one layer of the world; the astronomer on the stars, the meteorologist on the wind and the oceanographer on the sea.

You, as captain of the ship, are left startled. You wonder if there could be a master map which included the position of the stars, the wind currents and the depths of the sea in an integrated fashion.

This thesis consists on three main parts. On the first part I respond to the question: ‘why do we need a map of knowledge?’ We need a map of knowledge because: (1) maps aid in the exploration and (2) understanding of topics. (3) The excessive specialization of scientists has led to a fragmented vision of reality. (4) And, each person needs a system to organize and relate all the different content that he receives.

On the second part, I tell how the Board of the Encyclopaedia Britannica decided to make the Propaedia, who was involved, and what was its purpose.

Lastly, on the third part, I list some of the merits of the Propaedia. That it is a (1) collaborated and (2) updated effort. (3) It encompasses all the realms of knowledge while only having ten Parts. (4) All of the parts and sections are connected in a circular structure. (5) One benefit of this arrangement is that, it allows you to place any of the parts in the center, and use it as an analyzing tool.

Chapter 1. The Need for a Map of Knowledge

Maps Aid in Exploration

Roughly one million new books are written every year![i] Everyone acknowledges that we are now living in an age of information. One of the advantages of this information explosion is that it allows anyone with access to the Internet to learn about anything that he desires.

We all have access to this ‘library’ containing millions of books, but the sheer volume of disorganized information can be overwhelming; like the captain feeling lost, contemplating the vastness of the sea and the constant crashing of new waves into his boat. And this is precisely one of the Achilles heels of this ‘infinite’ library that is, it doesn’t have a general organizing structure. Imagine how much more useful a disorganized ‘infinite’ library would become if it was arranged in an orderly fashion.

In the analogy of the sailboat, you have the desire to explore different ‘places’. It is relevant that the word ‘topic’ comes from the Greek word ‘τόπος’: « a place ». In this sense, topics, therefore, are places; in a way they are immaterial places. And just as physical maps are extremely useful in navigating physical places, how much more useful would an intellectual map be for navigating intellectual ‘places’? In many ways an intellectual map is even more necessary than a physical one, precisely because it maps out non-material ‘places’, which are even harder to navigate.

The View from Above

Continuing this analogy; let’s suppose that somehow you arrived at the Philippines. Being there, you want to survey all of its islands, but without a map this task becomes very difficult. Even if you sailed through the thousands of landforms, you would find it very hard to grasp the shape of the archipelago as a whole. It would be extremely useful if you were able to see the big picture; the picture from above, if you had a map which showed the structure of all the islands of the Philippines. The same kind of thing happens if you want to completely understand a complex subject.

For example, let’s suppose that you want to study the biology of the human body. It is not enough for you to understand the function of each organ. To say truly that you understand the biology of the human body, you need to see how groups of organs form systems (e.g. digestive, immune…). You also need to see the skeleton and its connection with the muscles.

Therefore, a necessary step before understanding fully a complex subject, is seeing its underlying structure and how the parts are related to each other. 

This is also true if you insert in the ‘complex subject’ that you are interested in understanding, the ‘whole of human knowledge’. In other words, if you could see the ‘skeletons’ of all the bodies of knowledge, and the relationships between them, it would greatly help you in the understanding of them.

The Barbarism of Specialization

There is an obvious trend in the empirical sciences over the last decades; that of an ever-increasing specialization. Progress in the sciences has promoted this trend and it has benefited from it.

But this is not the important point that such a history would show, but rather the reverse side of the matter: how in each generation the scientist, through having to reduce the sphere of his labour, was progressively losing contact with other branches of science, with that integral interpretation of the universe which is the only thing deserving the names of science, culture, European civilisation.[ii]

The 20^th century Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, explains how this excessive specialization of scientists leads them to possess knowledge that few people in the world have. They might even make a discovery in their confined field of study and this leads to the social recognition of them being ‘experts’. Consequently, these scientists behave like  ‘experts’ in all the other realms of knowledge. Anyone with a basic education can realize this effect when some scientists start talking about philosophy, politics or religion; fields outside their expertise. 

You might say: ‘who cares that scientists have become super-specialized and isolated from the rest of the fields of knowledge? What consequences does this trend have on society anyway?’ Since ‘scientists’ have the greatest influence on public opinion, Ortega y Gasset, goes as far as saying that their ‘barbarism of specialization’ «is the most immediate cause of European demoralisation ».[iii]

If a group of intellectuals from all academic fields (historians, philosophers, philologers, psychologists, physicists, etc.) gathered and made a map of all knowledge, it would be of great use. Such a map would be helpful in placing limits and scopes on every field. Ideally, it would also show the relationships between these different disciplines. This would be useful in seeing the distinction and recognition of the different sciences. Finally, a map like this could be a first step towards alleviating the fragmented vision of reality that affects us today.

This idea was represented by the sailboat analogy in the disagreement between the astronomer, meteorologist and oceanographer. They were all experts in their areas of study, but none of them were considering the three levels (stars, wind and sea) as a whole. This is of course only an analogy, and in real life there is a lot of agreement between a physicist and an astronomer, for example. Both of these fields are part of the physical sciences, but if you were to ask, ‘what is a man?’ to a poet, a biologist and a philosopher, the disagreement becomes apparent. This type division is what I wanted to manifest through the sailboat analogy.

Personal Synthesis

On a more personal level, we are all interested in having a way to synthesize and relate all the content we have been taught in our own lives. Wouldn’t it be great if all the classes you took from kindergarten to your college degree formed a harmonious unity? Wouldn’t’ it be better if it formed a beautiful mosaic, rather than random fragments of shattered glass? Having a system for organizing all the kinds of information that we receive could greatly help you to achieve this. This could help you not only in ordering what you already know, but it could also be a useful storage system for future intellectual enrichment.

In summary, this Chapter examined the question: ‘why do we need an outline of knowledge?’ I respond that we need an outline of knowledge because, (1) it would help us organize the immense quantity of new information and thus allowing us to navigate through it; (2) seeing the structure and the relations between the parts of a topic is crucial for its understanding; (3) the barbarism of specialization has led to a fragmented vision of reality; (4) and, each person needs a way to synthetize and relate all the different subjects that he has learned in his life.

Chapter 2. The Making of the Propaedia

For twenty-five years (from 1949 to 1974) the most discussed topic at the board meetings of Britannica Encyclopedia Inc. was the decision between adopting an alphabetical versus a topical organization of the encyclopedia. They were analyzing the Encyclopédie Française, since it was the only topically-organized encyclopedia at that time. They thought that they had serious issues; one of them being that the content of the encyclopedia’s volumes did not correspond to the original outline that they had proposed. Another was a lack of consistency, because in some volumes they prioritized a pedagogical, instead of a logical organization of the subject matter. Also, several concerns were raised as to the reasons why many subjects were omitted and disregarded, in contrast to the subjects that occupied the center stage.

The board weighed the pros and cons of having a topical organization. The discussions were going back and forth until finally, Senator William Benton, Chairman of the Board of Directors, decided for an alphabetically organized encyclopedia. It was too economically risky to go for a topical encyclopedia, since many buyers just wanted a reference book, and an alphabetical organization better served that purpose.[iv]

However, in the 15^th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, with Mortimer Adler as Director of Editorial Planning, they made an innovation. While maintaining the alphabetical organization of the whole encyclopedia, they still wanted to retain the benefits of a topical arrangement.  What they now wanted was to make an analytical table of contents that arranged all of the encyclopedia articles in a logical and systematic fashion.

With this in mind, the senior members of Britannica’s editorial staff worked for eight years to develop a topical outline. They also consulted specialists in all fields of learning covered in the outline. There were at least eighty-six scholars that were consulters and/or contributors to the outline, which are listed at the end of the Propaedia.[v] They called the outline: Propaedia (πρό = before + παιδεία = general knowledge) « because it is a kind of preamble or antechamber, to the world of learning that the rest of the encyclopedia aims to encompass ».[vi]

One of the great improvements of the Propaedia is that it allows the student to survey all the articles of the encyclopaedia that deal with the same subject matter. This was a vast improvement, because with an alphabetical organization « the student who desires to make a complete study of a given topic must exercise his imagination if he seeks to exhaust the articles in which that topic is treated ».[vii]

In 1974 the first version of the Propaedia appeared. They later made some minor adjustments and in 1985 the last version of the Propaedia was published. This is the version I am analyzing in this thesis.

Chapter 3. The Merits of the Propaedia

An important consideration when analyzing the Propaedia is its merits. What do I mean by merit? One definition of merit is: « excellence, the quality of deserving praise ».[viii]  It is precisely these praiseworthy qualities of the Propaedia that I shall highlight. 

Collaboration

One of the unique characteristics of the 1985 Propaedia is that it was a collaboration. Over eighty-six contributors and advisers from all realms of knowledge made of this Propaedia a truly public consensus. Throughout history there have been attempts to make outlines of knowledge: Aristotle (4^th century BC), Roger Bacon (13^th century), Thomas Hobbes (17^th century), Diderot (18^th century) and several others.[ix] But all of these were individual efforts, and even though these men were intellectual giants, and had extremely broad knowledge of the sciences, they all had their blind spots and biases. These blind spots and biases are mitigated, however, if you have a group of intellectuals from all fields of knowledge and a variety of nationalities and educations.

Even the articles of the Encyclopaedia itself were a huge collaborative effort: « The 15th edition was given a global perspective by more than 4,000 contributing authors from more than 100 countries. The editorial creation of the work cost $32 million exclusive of printing costs, representing the largest single private investment in publishing history up to that time ».[x]

Also, the work was delegated. Each part had an authority in that field of knowledge in charge of making that section’s outline. Never in history had a map of knowledge, much less of this magnitude, been made as a collaboration of many minds.

Updated

However glorious and fruitful the medieval Trivium and Quadrivium was, the fact is, that it is outdated. When The National Academy of the Sciences was founded in 1863, it had ten sections. In 1975, this increased to twenty-three sections in order to accommodate the new sciences. All the new sciences had less than 100 years of existence.[xi] It is apparent that we now have a proliferation of new sciences, and if we have so many new sciences, we need a map that is updated. Just as the World Map drastically changed with the discovery of America, we need a map that corresponds to our current understanding of the world. We need a map that takes into consideration fields like quantum mechanics and computer science. It would also be insightful to see the relationships between the new sciences and the older ones.

Wholeness

Another achievement of the Propaedia is its wholeness. What I mean by this is that it did a wonderful job not only encompassing all areas of knowledge, but of the whole universe: « the encyclopaedia, sets for itself the goal of reporting everything that is and can be known about the universe. The one is mirrored or reflected in the other—the macrocosm in the microcosm ».[xii] I invite you to see the ten Parts with their main divisions[xiii], and to appreciate how it covers all levels of the universe and knowledge.

It is also praiseworthy that they no longer have a ‘Miscellaneous’ category as in the 11^th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. This Encyclopedia, published in 1911, had a Classified Table of Contents with twenty-four parts. One of these parts was titled ‘Miscellaneous’ which is a clear sign of the incompleteness and inconsistency of that system. It is remarkable that in only ten Parts, the Propaedia was able to include all the sciences in an insightful manner. In fact, I invite you to try to find a subject that doesn’t fall into one of these categories.

Circular Connectedness

Another of the Propaedia’s merits is the structure itself. It has ten Parts, forty-two Divisions, one hundred eighty-six Sections, and thousands of topics. This structure is like a beautiful rose window. It is remarkable that each of the ten Parts are related to their neighboring parts, for example: « Parts Three and Four, dealing with Life on Earth and with Human Life, are closely related; Parts Four and Five, dealing with Human Life and with Human Society, are also closely related; but Part Four has a different relatedness to Part Three, on the one hand, and to Part Five, on the other. ».[xiv] These connections are between Parts and within Sections and exist throughout the structure. It gives the whole structure a sense of connectedness and cohesion.

Another unique characteristic of this outline of knowledge is its circular arrangement. They took inspiration from the etymology of the word en-cyclo-paedia, and they made the map of knowledge as a unified circle of learning. This also unveils one of the guiding principles of the Propaedia, which is the belief in the unity of truth between all the realms of knowledge: «Underlying it is the faith that the whole world of knowledge is a single universe of discourse ».[xv]

This organization also corresponds to reality, since truth itself is unified. Logically speaking, if in two realms of knowledge you arrive at two incompatible answers to the same question, both can’t be true. The same principle that applies to faith and reason also applies from science to science. The principle that I’m referring to is that « there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God ».[xvi]

Mobility

Another benefit of the Propaedia’s circular arrangement is the ability to place any of the ten parts in the center. The Part that you are interested in studying can be placed in the center, and you could therefore understand the connections it has with the rest of the parts. This feature is shown in the diagram below.

Diagram 1. Demonstrating the mobility of the circular structure of the Propaedia.[xvii]

This diagram shows that you can place any of the Parts in the center, but Part Ten is different from the rest: « Parts One through Nine represent the knowledge of nature, of human society, of human institutions, and their history. In clear contradistinction, Part Ten covers the disciplines themselves— the branches of knowledge or fields of scholarship— by which one inquires into, thinks about, or comes to have knowledge of the world in which he lives ».[xviii] This is why they specifically designed Part Ten, The Branches of Knowledge, to be placed in the center. The Divisions of Part Ten are the following:

1. Logic
2. Mathematics

III. Science

1. History and Philosophy of Science
2. The Physical Sciences
3. The Earth Sciences
4. The Biological Sciences
5. Medicine and Affiliated Disciplines
6. The Social Sciences and Psychology and Linguistics
7. The Technological Sciences
8. History and the Humanities
9. Philosophy

After looking at the Sections of Part 10, do you see what they have done? The Sections correspond with the rest of the parts of the outline! (Section 2 The Physical Sciences = Part 10 Matter and Energy, Section 3 The Earth sciences = Part 2 The Earth….) So, for example in Part 10, Section 4, The Biological Sciences « examines the nature, methods, problems, and history of the biological sciences; but the knowledge of life that the biological sciences afford is outlined in Part Three».[xix] This is one remarkable feature of the Propaedia.

Diagram 2. Propaedia with the Divisions of the Branches of Knowledge.

What about Logic, Mathematics, History and Philosophy? Why are they treated differently? All the sciences and fields of knowledge arrive at their findings through a particular methodology. They also each have methods for verifying, demonstrating and arguing their results. The science of logic provides « the underpinnings for our study of the methodology of the other learned disciplines, including history and philosophy as well as the various sciences ».[xx] This influence in the rest of the realms of knowledge, makes Logic have a special place.

For a somewhat similar reason, Mathematics also occupies a special position. The knowledge we get from Mathematics « has extraordinarily wide and diverse applicability in other spheres of inquiry and branches of knowledge—in most, if not all, of the natural sciences and in many of the social sciences ».[xxi]

History and Philosophy are also unique fields in the sense that there is a philosophy and history of each of the branches of knowledge. Not only that, « there is a history and a philosophy of history, so there is a philosophy of philosophy and a history of philosophy—a statement which probably cannot be made about any other two disciplines in the entire range of the branches of knowledge ».[xxii]

The Circular arrangement also makes it an excellent analytical tool for seeing the relationships that each part has with the topic you are studying. To give a concrete example, let’s suppose you want to learn more about the Moon. After some thought, you realize that in Part 10, Matter and Energy, Division 3, the Solar System, you might find the information you seek. Then, you start reading about the physics of the Moon, its chemical composition, and the movement of celestial bodies… After your research, you now have a good idea about the physical properties of the Moon. But there is much more that you can learn about the Moon than what the physical sciences offer. To illustrate this, place ‘The Moon’ in the center of the Propaedia.

Diagram 3. The Moon in the center of the Propaedia.

This permits you to see the Moon in relation to Earth (Part 2), and to learn about the relationships between the Moon and ocean tides, or the gravitational effects of the Moon on the Earth. You could also learn about different animal behaviors caused by the Moon phases (Part 3). You can also seek answers to these kind of questions: What effects does the Moon have on the human body? Or, what are the psychological effects of a full Moon? (Part 4). You could also learn about the etymology of the word ‘Moon’, or you could theorize what would be the economic consequences of mining the Moon (Part 5). You might also want to experience different artistic representations that people have made of the Moon, or you could even be inspired to listen to Debussy’s Clair de lune. Maybe after seeing the beauty of a full Moon, you might want to express this in a painting or a poem (Part 6). You could also investigate the different telescopes and equipment that has been developed to study the Moon (Part 7). Another aspect that you could look into, is the significance that the Moon has in various religions and its effects on the calendars (Part 8). Also, you could learn about the Moon throughout history and its role in civilizations (Part 9). Finally, you could also ask endless philosophical questions about the Moon and its essence. “Who is the owner of the Moon? Are there civil laws in the Moon?, etc. (Part 10).

With this example, it shows clearly how you can get a much more holistic understanding of what the Moon is, if you consider it under the lenses of the 10 parts. You can virtually apply this type of analysis to any subject matter.

In summary, the merits of the Propaedia that I wanted to highlight are: (1) that it is a collaborative effort. (2) It is updated. (3) The ten parts encompass the whole world of knowledge. (4) The parts and divisions are connected to each other. (5) And, it has a circular arrangement that allows the reader to place any of the parts in its center.

Conclusion

Captain, you now have a master map. The desire you had of exploring thousands of topics now can be fulfilled, since all of these topics appear in your map. With this map you have the view from above that will help you in the understanding of complex topics.

This map was the fruit of the dialogue between the astronomer, the meteorologist and the oceanographer of your sailboat. They have set the limits of each of the areas and have recognized the importance of each others’ fields. With this master map, you have gained a more complete understanding of the world. Also, you now have a system for keeping record of all your adventures and journeys. Go forth Captain!

[i] R. Errera, in “How Many Books Are Published Each Year? [2024 Statistics]”, https://www.tonerbuzz.com/blog/how-many-books-are-published-each-year/#:~:text=So%2C%20how%20many%20books%20are,book%20titles%20published%20each%20year, [April 29, 2024] .

[ii] J. ORTEGA Y GASSET, The Revolt of the Masses, Ch. 12. The Barbarism Of “Specialisation”,  Reissue edition, W. W. Norton & Company, New York 1994.

[iii] J. ORTEGA Y GASSET, The Revolt of the Masses, Ch. 12. The Barbarism Of “Specialisation”,  Reissue edition, W. W. Norton & Company, New York 1994.

[iv] Cfr. M.J. ADLER, A Guidebook to Learning, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York 1986, pp. 82-95.

[v] Propaedia,  Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.,  Chicago 2010,  p.525-529

[vi] M.J. ADLER, Propaedia, The Circle of Learning,  Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.,  Chicago 2010,  p. 7.

[vii] ibid.

[viii] New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus, Lexicon Publications, Inc., Danbury 1995

[ix] Cfr. M.J. ADLER, A Guidebook to Learning, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York 1986, pp. 39-81, for a summary of all the major attempts of outlines of knowledge throughout history.

[x] C. H. W. Kent et al., “Encyclopaedia Britannica”, in Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/Encyclop%C3%A6dia-Britannica/32600 [April 20, 2024].

[xi] Cfr. M.J. ADLER, A Guidebook to Learning, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York 1986, p.26.

[xii] M.J. ADLER, Propaedia, Knowledge Become Self-conscious,  Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.,  Chicago 2010,  p. 475.

[xiii] See the Appendix of this thesis, p. 20.

[xiv] M.J. ADLER, Propaedia, The Circle of Learning,  Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.,  Chicago 2010,  p. 7.

[xv] M.J. ADLER, Propaedia, Knowledge Become Self-conscious,  Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.,  Chicago 2010,  p. 477.

[xvi] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition, Danbury 2000, #159.

[xvii] M.J. ADLER, Propaedia, The Circle of Learning,  Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.,  Chicago 2010,  p. 7.

[xviii] ibid.

[xix] M.J. ADLER, Propaedia, The Circle of Learning… p. 8.

[xx] M.J. ADLER, Propaedia, Knowledge Become Self-conscious… p. 475.

[xxi] ibid.

[xxii] ibid.