Epigraph

الرَّحْمَٰنُ 

عَلَّمَ الْقُرْآنَ 

خَلَقَ الْإِنسَانَ

عَلَّمَهُ الْبَيَانَ

It is the Lord of Mercy, who taught the Qur’an. He created man and taught him to communicate. (Al Quran 55:1-4)

Presented by Zia H Shah MD

Audio teaser: Scientific Anarchy Versus Arabic Mathematical Precision

Abstract

The history of human knowledge is inextricably linked to the history of nomenclature—the systematic assignment of names to entities within a domain of study. This report investigates the rigorous, collaborative, and often contentious processes through which nomenclature was established in the fields of chemistry, biology, and psychiatry. It examines the transition from the idiosyncratic, metaphorical naming of alchemy and pre-Linnaean biology to the highly standardized, institutionally governed systems of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the various International Codes of biological nomenclature. Furthermore, it traces the evolution of psychiatric classification from census-based statistics to the complex, consensus-driven revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Parallel to these human-engineered systems, the report provides an exhaustive analysis of the Arabic language, highlighting its unique triliteral root system, its mathematically precise morphological derivations, and the structural beauty of its case system (I’rab). By synthesizing evidence from historical nomenclature agreements with the inherent complexity of Arabic, the analysis posits that while scientific naming is a product of tortuous human consensus, the fundamental architecture of human language—exemplified by the Arabic model—suggests a premeditated blueprint. The report argues that such systemic cohesion and resistance to linguistic entropy point toward an initial language bestowed by a divine consciousness, upon which humans have incrementally built or rediscovered the taxonomies of the natural and mental worlds.

The Human Quest for Precision: The Evolution of Chemical Nomenclature

The systematic categorization of chemical substances represents one of the earliest successful attempts to create a universal scientific language through formal consensus. Before the late eighteenth century, chemistry was encumbered by the legacy of alchemy, a field that prioritized secrecy and mysticism over clarity and standardization. In this pre-systematic era, a single substance could possess over a dozen different names, often based on its appearance, its discoverer, or its perceived properties. Names such as “butter of antimony,” “oil of vitriol,” and “flowers of zinc” were common, providing no information regarding the actual atomic or elemental composition of the compounds.

The 1787 Revolution and the Lavoisier Reform

The transformation of chemical nomenclature from a “confused set of names” into a rational system began in earnest when Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, collaborating with Claude Louis Berthollet, Antoine François de Fourcroy, and Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau, published the Méthode de nomenclature chimique in 1787. This group, which met almost daily in Paris, sought to create a naming convention that mirrored the chemical revolution Lavoisier was fostering. Their primary objective was to ensure that a compound’s name would uniquely define it by revealing the atoms present and their relative proportions.

The fundamental principle introduced by the 1787 reformers was that the name of a substance should reflect its chemical composition. For instance, they derived the names of salts from their respective acids, establishing the logic of using suffixes to indicate oxygen content and oxidation states. This system was not merely a linguistic convenience; it was inextricably intertwined with Lavoisier’s oxygen theory, serving as a weapon against the outdated phlogiston theory. While proponents of the old science viewed the new nomenclature as “barbaric,” the simplicity and clarifying power of the Lavoisier system led to its rapid adoption across Europe and North America.

The Standardization of Symbols and the Berzelius Innovation

While the French group reformed the verbal naming of chemicals, the Swedish chemist Jöns Jakob Berzelius revolutionized the symbolic representation of elements and compounds in the early nineteenth century. Before Berzelius, chemical notation often relied on idiosyncratic symbols that were difficult to reproduce in print. Berzelius argued that chemical signs ought to be letters to facilitate the production of printed books.

In 1814, Berzelius proposed a standardized use of single-letter symbols for the most frequently cited nonmetals—B, C, F, H, I, N, O, P, and S—and two-letter symbols for less common or metallic elements. This alphabetical notation allowed for the “linear expression of formulae,” where periods or points separated different atoms or groups in a main chain. This structural logic remains the foundation of modern chemical notation, demonstrating that the move toward standardization was a deliberate effort to enhance communication and data retrieval.

The Institution of IUPAC and Global Consensus

As the discovery of organic compounds surged in the mid-nineteenth century, the need for an internationally accepted system became urgent. In 1892, 34 leading chemists from nine European countries convened to establish the Geneva Rules, focusing on providing systematic names for aliphatic organic compounds. This gathering introduced two seminal principles: the use of the longest carbon chain as the parent name and the indication of functional groups through suffixes.

This effort culminated in 1920 with the formation of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). IUPAC serves as the global authority on chemical nomenclature, moving beyond “reform” to the “codification of sound practices”. The consensus-building process within IUPAC is notoriously rigorous, involving commissions for organic, inorganic, and biological chemistry that operate through multiyear projects.

Publication	Scope	Key Features
The Blue Book	Organic Chemistry	Rules for naming carbon-based structures and functional groups.
The Red Book	Inorganic Chemistry	Conventions for naming elements, ions, and coordination compounds.
The White Book	Biochemistry	Jointly maintained with IUBMB for biological molecules.
The Gold Book	Terminology	Compendium of chemical terminology and definitions.

.

The IUPAC process involves a “tortuous path” from initial proposal to definitive acceptance, requiring public review and consensus from more than 50 national chemistry organizations. This institutionalized agreement ensures that a chemist in Tokyo and a chemist in Berlin can communicate regarding a specific molecule with absolute certainty, a state of affairs that was carefully engineered rather than occurring by chance.

The Taxonomy of Life: Biological Nomenclature and the Linnaean Legacy

The biological sciences mirror chemistry in their transition from descriptive, polynomial naming to a rigorous, hierarchical system. Before the eighteenth century, naturalists struggled with “polynomial nomenclature,” where scientific names consisted of long Latin descriptions that could be several words long and varied by author. This inconsistency created significant confusion as global exploration introduced a “flood of new plants and animals” to the scientific community.

The Binomial Breakthrough of Carolus Linnaeus

The Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) is credited with formalizing the modern system of binomial nomenclature. In his seminal works, Systema Naturae (1735) and Species Plantarum (1753), Linnaeus introduced a standardized method where each species is identified by a two-part Latin name: a capitalized genus name followed by a specific epithet.

Linnaeus’s contribution was not merely a reduction in length but the establishment of a “hierarchical classification framework”. He organized life forms into nested categories: species were grouped into genera, genera into orders, and orders into classes. This system allowed naturalists to not only remember names but also to agree upon them, as the names were tied to unique defining characteristics, primarily reproductive organs in plants.

Taxonomic Rank	Definition	Example (Human)
Kingdom	Broadest category of life	Animalia
Phylum/Division	Major group with shared body plan	Chordata
Class	Sub-group within a phylum	Mammalia
Order	Sub-group within a class	Primates
Family	Closely related genera	Hominidae
Genus	The first part of the binomial name	Homo
Species	The second part; the specific identifier	sapiens

.

Linnaeus viewed his work as an act of “divine organization,” famously stating that “God created, but Linnaeus organized”. His taxonomy was built on the tacit assumption that the task of describing all things “put on Earth by God” was finite. Ironically, this rigid hierarchical system later provided the framework for Darwin’s theory of evolution by common descent, as the nested categories could be interpreted as genealogical lineages.

International Consensus and Modern Codes of Conduct

By the late nineteenth century, the explosion of known species required more formal governance than individual naturalists could provide. This led to the creation of various “Codes” of nomenclature, each focusing on a specific kingdom of life. The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), now the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) were established to ensure stability and universality in naming.

These codes operate under the “Principle of Priority,” which dictates that the first validly published name for a taxon is the correct one. The consensus-building process within these bodies is intense. For instance, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), founded in 1895, comprises 26 commissioners from 20 countries who rule on specific cases of nomenclatural uncertainty. These rulings are published as “Opinions” in a specialized bulletin, ensuring that every animal has a unique and universally accepted name. This level of administrative and scientific coordination demonstrates that biological nomenclature is a highly managed social and scientific contract.

Mapping the Mind: The Evolution of Psychiatric Nomenclature

Perhaps the most complex and controversial area of naming is found in psychiatry. Unlike the chemical elements or biological species, mental disorders are defined by clusters of symptoms, behaviors, and cultural contexts that are subject to shifting scientific paradigms and social values. The evolution of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) provides a clear case study in how nomenclature is deliberately revised through expert consensus and institutional power.

From Administrative Statistics to Clinical Utility

The early ancestors of the DSM were primarily tools for administrative data collection. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, classifications were used for psychiatric hospital statistics and military census data. The first edition of the DSM, published in 1952, was the first official manual to focus specifically on clinical use. It listed 106 mental disorders, many of which were categorized as “reactions” (e.g., “depressive reaction,” “schizophrenic reaction”), reflecting the dominant psychodynamic theories of the time which viewed mental illness as a response to stressors.

The Spitzer Paradigm and the Shift to Reliability

The transition to modern psychiatric nomenclature occurred with the publication of DSM-III in 1980, led by Robert Spitzer. This represented a “paradigm shift” from the previous etiologically based systems to an “atheoretical” and “agnostic” approach regarding the causes of disorders. The primary goal of DSM-III was to establish “reliability”—the ability for different clinicians to agree on a diagnosis.

To achieve this, Spitzer introduced “explicit diagnostic criteria”—specific checklists of symptoms that had to be met for a diagnosis to be made. This “re-medicalization” of psychiatry was a deliberate effort to align the field with the rest of medicine, grounding it in empirical research and clinical observation rather than abstract psychological theories.

The Contemporary Revision Process: Consensus and Conflict

Modern revisions, such as the DSM-5 (2013) and DSM-5-TR (2022), involve a massive, multi-year collaborative effort. The process for DSM-5 began 13 years before its publication, involving the creation of research agendas, hundreds of white papers, and the formation of 13 work groups focusing on different disorder areas. These revisions are not accidental but are the result of “rigorous peer and public review” intended to remove “unbalanced” or “stigmatizing” language.

DSM Edition	Year	Number of Disorders	Dominant Paradigm
DSM-I	1952	106	Psychodynamic; “Reactions” to stress.
DSM-II	1968	182	Psychodynamic; emphasis on neurosis vs. psychosis.
DSM-III	1980	265	Atheoretical; descriptive; explicit criteria.
DSM-IV	1994	297	Empirical; literature-review based.
DSM-5	2013	~300	Integration of neuroscience and dimensional models.
DSM-5-TR	2022	–	Focus on health equity and stigmatizing language.

.

The history of the DSM also highlights how consensus can be challenged and shifted by social movements. A notable example is the removal of homosexuality from the manual in 1974. Previously listed as a “sociopathic personality disturbance,” the classification was changed following psychological studies and social advocacy that demonstrated no difference in adjustment between homosexual and heterosexual individuals. This revision underscores that psychiatric nomenclature is a living, consensus-driven document that reflects both scientific progress and evolving societal understanding.

The Arabic Language: A Premeditated Linguistic Architecture

While the nomenclatures of chemistry, biology, and psychiatry are the result of centuries of human committee-driven effort, the structure of the Arabic language presents a different kind of organization—one that appears to be built upon a mathematically rigorous and semantically coherent blueprint. The Arabic system of morphology and syntax exhibits a complexity and beauty that many philologists argue cannot be the result of accidental or random linguistic drift.

The Trilateral Root: The Genetic Seed of Meaning

The most striking feature of the Arabic language is its “non-concatenative morphology,” based primarily on the triliteral root system. Nearly every Arabic word is derived from a core of three consonants (radicals) that encapsulate an abstract concept. This root serves as the “genetic blueprint” or “semantic seed” of the language, maintaining its core meaning through an almost infinite variety of derivatives.

For example, the root $k-t-b$ (ك-ت-ب) carries the abstract idea of “writing”. From these three letters, the language generates an expansive lexical matrix including kataba (he wrote), kitāb (book), maktaba (library/office), kātib (writer), and maktuūb (written/letter). This structural dominance of the triliteral form (accounting for over 7,000 of the documented 11,347 lexical roots) suggests an optimized design that balances semantic density with phonetic flexibility.

Mathematical Rigor and Root Reproduction

Modern computational analysis reveals that the Arabic root system is not an infinite or random value but a finite, controlled set. Root reproduction can be modeled as a system of linear functions where the root ($r$) acts as a constant and added letters ($l$) serve as independent variables.

$$f(x) = ax + b$$

This mathematical precision ensures that even as the language expands to encompass new concepts, it remains tethered to its original logical foundations.

Furthermore, the “Intersection Law” of set theory can be applied to Arabic morphology. Every word derived from a specific root belongs to a set defined by those core consonants. The mathematical intersection of these sets invariably reveals the primary root itself.

$$Set_{a_{4}} \cap Set_{a_{3}} \cap Set_{a_{2}} = Set_{a_{1}}$$

This allows for maximum communicative efficiency; a speaker can isolate the root consonants from a complex word and immediately grasp its general semantic category.

The Twelve Verb Forms: A Study in Nuanced Derivation

The true power of the Arabic morphological system is displayed in its derived verb forms (al-awzān). By applying specific templates to a triliteral root, the language creates nuanced meanings—causative, reflexive, intensive, or reciprocal—that are mathematically predictable across the entire lexicon. While there are fifteen possible forms, the first ten are the most common, each adding a layer of sophisticated meaning to the base action.

The following table demonstrates twelve examples of the derived forms using the root $k-t-b$ (writing), $j-m-3$ (gathering), and others to illustrate the “tern” or specific patterns of the verb forms.

Form	Template (Perfect)	Root	Derived Verb (Transliteration)	Primary Meaning/Nuance
I	فَعَلَ	$k-t-b$	kataba	Basic action: He wrote.
II	فَعَّلَ	$d-r-s$	darrasa	Causative: He taught (made to study).
III	فَاعَلَ	$k-t-b$	kātaba	Reciprocal: He corresponded with.
IV	أَفْعَلَ	$k-t-b$	’aktaba	Causative: He dictated (made to write).
V	تَفَعَّلَ	$d-r-s$	tadarrasa	Reflexive/Intensive: He studied intensively.
VI	تَفَاعَلَ	$k-t-b$	takātaba	Mutuality: They corresponded with each other.
VII	انْفَعَلَ	$q-T-3$	inqaTa3a	Passive/Submission: It was cut off.
VIII	افْتَعَلَ	$j-m-3$	ijtama3a	Reflexive/Meeting: He met/gathered himself.
IX	افْعَلَّ	$H-m-r$	iHmarrra	Color/Physical: He turned red/blushed.
X	اسْتَفْعَلَ	$k-t-b$	istaktaba	Seeking: He asked (someone) to write.
XI	افْتَعَالَّ	$H-m-r$	iHmārrra	Intensive Color: He turned deep red.
XII	افْعَوْعَلَ	$H-d-b$	iHdawdaba	Intense state: It became very arched/humped.

.

The existence of such a structured system, where the same morphological template applied to any root results in a predictable change in meaning (e.g., doubling the middle consonant consistently creates a causative or intensive meaning), is considered by many philologists as evidence of a premeditated design.

The Logic of I’rab and Linguistic Beauty

The organization of Arabic is not limited to word formation but extends to its syntax through the system of I’rab (case endings). In Classical Arabic, the grammatical role of a word in a sentence is not determined solely by its position (as in English) but by short vowel markings at the end of the word.

The Tripartite Case System

The I’rab system utilizes three primary markers to indicate the syntactic function of nouns and adjectives :

• Raf’ (Nominative): Indicated by the damma (u) vowel. This case marks the subject of a sentence (al-Fā’il) or the predicate of a nominal sentence.
• Nasb (Accusative): Indicated by the fatha (a) vowel. This case marks the direct object (al-Maf’ūl) and various adverbial circumstances.
• Jarr (Genitive): Indicated by the kasra (i) vowel. This case marks words following prepositions or the second term of a possessive construct (al-Mudhāf ilayh).

This system provides the language with an unparalleled degree of flexibility and precision. Because the role of each word is clearly marked by its ending, the word order can be varied for stylistic or rhetorical emphasis without losing the underlying meaning.

Preventing Ambiguity through Case Logic

The practical beauty of I’rab is most evident in complex sentences where meaning might otherwise be ambiguous. A classic example cited in theological literature is the Quranic verse: “Only those fear Allah, from among His servants, who have knowledge” (Innamā yakhshā Allāha min ‘ibādihi al-‘ulamā’u).

In this sentence, the word for Allah (Allāh) ends with a fatha (Accusative), indicating it is the object of the verb “to fear”. The word for scholars (al-‘ulamā’u) ends with a damma (Nominative), identifying it as the subject. Without these markings, the sentence could be misinterpreted as Allah fearing the scholars, a theological impossibility. The I’rab serves as a “clear marker” that eliminates ambiguity and ensures the integrity of the message across generations.

Theoretical Origins: Divine Revelation vs. Random Evolution

The stark contrast between the “tortuous” human path to naming chemicals and the “miraculous” structural coherence of the Arabic language invites a philosophical inquiry into the origins of language itself. Two primary theories have dominated this discourse in both Western and Islamic traditions: Tawqif (Divine Revelation) and Istilah (Human Convention).

The Barrier of Reason: The Argument for Tawqif

Many philologists and theologians argue that language exhibits such complexity and internal logic that it could not have emerged simply from the “notes of birds and the cries of beasts”. The German philosopher Johann Peter Süßmilch (1707–1767) famously argued that human language is structured so regularly and orderly that it presupposes reflection, reason, and wisdom.

Süßmilch posited a “chicken-and-egg” dilemma: the invention of language would require the use of reason, but the use of reason (deduction, general ideas, and complex thought) is impossible without the arbitrary signs of language. Therefore, he concluded that language cannot be of human origin but must have been bestowed upon humans by God. This perspective aligns with the Islamic concept of Tawqif, which emphasizes the pre-eminent role of divine agency in the imposition of language, as suggested by the Quranic account of Allah teaching Adam “the names of all things”.

The Resistance to Entropy: A Planned Architecture

Modern secular linguistics largely adopts a “continuity theory,” suggesting that language evolved gradually from pre-linguistic systems. However, this theory struggles to explain the mathematical regularity and “counter-entropic” stability of a language like Classical Arabic. While most languages undergo significant semantic drift and morphological simplification over time, Classical Arabic has maintained its core morphological and syntactic rules for over fourteen centuries.

This stability suggests a premeditated architecture that resists the forces of random social change. The triliteral root acts as a “linguistic gene” that preserves the “mental lexicon” of its speakers. The sheer mathematical optimization of the system—balancing phonetic ease with semantic depth—provides a compelling case for a “premeditated and planned” design rather than a byproduct of blind evolutionary processes.

Thematic Epilogue: The Convergence of Taxonomy and Truth

The history of scientific nomenclature is a record of the human struggle to achieve clarity. From the daily meetings of Lavoisier’s group in 1787 to the multi-year task forces of the modern APA, humans have laboriously constructed systems to organize the world around them. These agreements are essential for progress, yet they are fragile, subject to revision, and often marred by inconsistency until institutionalized through rigorous global consensus. They represent the “best efforts” of the human mind to replicate a perceived order in nature.

In contrast, the Arabic language appears to contain an inherent taxonomy within its very structure. Its roots and patterns do not merely “name” the world; they categorize it with a mathematical rigor that mirrors the order discovered in chemistry and biology. The fact that a single root can generate a dozens of precisely nuanced verbs, nouns, and adjectives according to a rigid template suggests that the “consensus” was already established at the moment of the language’s inception.

The parallel between the human quest for systematic naming and the structural perfection of Arabic morphology points toward a profound synthesis. It suggests that while humans must collectively agree upon the names for new discoveries in science, the “initial language” given to humanity was built upon a divine blueprint. This blueprint already contained the requirements of logic, reason, and organization that scientists would later strive to replicate. Whether language was gifted in its entirety or provided as a foundational set of rules that humans expanded upon, the evidence of its mathematical precision and aesthetic beauty remains a testament to an “All-Knowing God.” The taxonomies of chemistry, biology, and psychiatry are human attempts to fulfill the original potential of that divine gift—to name the world truly, clearly, and without ambiguity, in accordance with the blueprint already entrenched in early human interaction.