Analysis reveals systemic and historical principles in soil science, indicating their role in unifying theory and practice.
This paper examines the hierarchical organization of principles in soil science, emphasizing their continuity with classical positions from various scientific fields and their role in integrating theory and practice. The study highlights differences in the genesis of principles, ranging from theoretical generalizations to experimentally validated propositions. Special attention is given to ideas of V.I. Vernadsky and V.V. Dokuchaev, who laid the foundations for the systemic and evolutionary-historical approaches to soil study. It is demonstrated that the scientific worldview serves as the pinnacle of this hierarchy, defining a system of generalizations, including the principles of systemicity, historicism, and the primacy of scientific approaches formulated by Academician G.V. Dobrovolsky. These principles ensure unity between theoretical and applied directions, rooted in the classical supra-conceptual ideas by V.V. Dokuchaev, whose works underpin the genetic approach to soil study. Within the hierarchy, following the scientific worldview come methodological principles neutral to specific disciplinary sections, followed by concepts, laws, and principles. For instance, N.M. Sibirtsev’s genetic principle, formulated in the 19th century, continues to define approaches to soil genesis. The paper underscores the importance of continuity, showing that Dokuchaev’s principles of systemicity and historicism remain fundamental for developing new scientific leads. The hierarchical organization of principles and their intra- and interdisciplinary continuity serve as key instruments for the progress in soil science, enabling integration of diverse knowledge into a unified scientific field. The necessity for further systematization of principles, particularly in biogeochemical cycles and interdisciplinary research, and terminology harmonization to strengthen the link between theory and practice is also emphasized.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bogatyrev et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: