Measurement science: constructing bridges between reality and knowledge (original) (raw)

The Epistemological Aspect of Measurement

IMEKO XIII, 1994

This paper introduces the problem of the importance of measurement, and particularly the importance of the significance of the measurements made, not merely the quantities obtained by the measurement. The focus then shifts to epistemology. Section 3 discusses some theories of measurement, with special reference to the significance of different types of mathematical models of measurement. Section 4 discusses the concept of information in measurement systems. Section 5 discusses idealism, phenomenalism, and realism as competing ontologies, and gives basis for accepting realism as useful to the theory of measurement systems. Section 6 discusses the representational theory of perception, based on realism, and section 7 presents conclusions, with application to measurement. The paper ends with the statement of two essential points for the extraction of knowledge from measurements.

Measurement Fundamentals: A Pragmatic View

IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2000

Measurements are more and more required in an increasing variety of human activities to acquire reliable information useful for effectively supporting decision-making processes. Furthermore, the entities whose properties are to be measured and the measuring systems are becoming increasingly complex, hardly to be modeled and managed. In this rapidly evolving scenario, several issues concerning the fundamentals of measurement science and technology arise. The purpose of this paper is to discuss some aspects of the crucial question about which evaluation processes can be considered measurements. Rather than focusing on formal conditions or technological constraints, we propose a pragmatic characterization of measurement, under the assumption that a better comprehension of the concept can be achieved by identifying and discussing the basic features which justify the reliability attributed to measurement results. With such an interdisciplinary approach, this work aims at promoting a broad discussion among interested researchers, even working in different scientific disciplines, so to increase the synergies among different research areas and to improve the body of knowledge about measurement fundamentals.

The Epistemology of Measurement: A Model-based Account

2012

This work develops an epistemology of measurement, that is, an account of the conditions under which measurement and standardization methods produce knowledge as well as the nature, scope, and limits of this knowledge. I focus on three questions: (i) how is it possible to tell whether an instrument measures the quantity it is intended to? (ii) what do claims to measurement accuracy amount to, and how might such claims be justified? (iii) when is disagreement among instruments a sign of error, and when does it imply that instruments measure different quantities? Based on a series of case studies conducted in collaboration with the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), I argue for a model-based approach to the epistemology of physical measurement. To measure a physical quantity, I argue, is to estimate the value of a parameter in an idealized model of a physical process. Such estimation involves inference from the final state (‘indication’) of a process to the value range of a parameter (‘outcome’) in light of theoretical and statistical assumptions. Contrary to contemporary philosophical views, measurement outcomes cannot be obtained by mapping the structure of indications. Instead, measurement outcomes as well as claims to accuracy, error and quantity individuation can only be adjudicated relative to a choice of idealized modelling assumptions.

The quality of measurement results in terms of the structural features of the measurement process

Measurement

In both scientific and lay settings, measurement is considered a privileged source of high-quality information, and is commonly associated with precision, accuracy, and dependability. However, it is not always clear what features of the measurement process justify this public trust, and how the quality of measurement results in different domains of inquiry can be compared. In this paper, we first argue that the quality of measurement results depends on their object-relatedness ("objectivity") and subjectindependence ("intersubjectivity") and is justified on the basis of the structural features of the measurement process, as well as features of the inputs or the outputs of the process. Given this perspective, we analyze three general measurement methods, according to which a measurement process can be structured and performed, which may be called (a) direct synchronous, (b) direct asynchronous, and (c) indirect. In addition to the value of these distinctions for the process of designing measuring instruments, they allow us to highlight the different roles of models, theories, and computations in measurement. We then attempt to apply this classification strategy in the context of the social sciences by discussing the role of (1) the definition of the measurand and (2) the theory connecting the measurand to the measurement results in each of these measurement methods, and how they can or cannot be conceptualized from the perspective of measurement theories in the social sciences. This leads us to the conclusion that the differences between physical and non-physical measurement are historical and contextual rather than essential; that is, in both cases, the quality of measurement results can be effectively evaluated from a structural perspective.

Measurement in Science

Measurement is an integral part of modern science as well as of engineering, commerce, and daily life. Measurement is often considered a hallmark of the scientific enterprise and a privileged source of knowledge relative to qualitative modes of inquiry. [1] Despite its ubiquity and importance, there is little consensus among philosophers as to how to define measurement, what sorts of things are measurable, or which conditions make measurement possible. Most (but not all) contemporary authors agree that measurement is an activity that involves interaction with a concrete system with the aim of representing aspects of that system in abstract terms (e.g., in terms of classes, numbers, vectors etc.) But this characterization also fits various kinds of perceptual and linguistic activities that are not usually considered measurements, and is therefore too broad to count as a definition of measurement. Moreover, if "concrete" implies "real", this characterization is also too narrow, as measurement often involves the representation of ideal systems such as the average household or an electron at complete rest. Philosophers have written on a variety of conceptual, metaphysical, semantic and epistemological issues related to measurement. This entry will survey the central philosophical standpoints on the nature of measurement, the notion of measurable quantity and related epistemological issues. It will refrain from elaborating on the many disciplinespecific problems associated with measurement and focus on issues that have a general character.

A structural interpretation of measurement and some related epistemological issues

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A

Measurement is widely applied because its results are assumed to be more reliable than opinions and guesses, but this reliability is sometimes justified in a stereotyped way. After a critical analysis of such stereotypes, a structural characterization of measurement is proposed, as partly empirical and partly theoretical process, by showing that it is in fact the structure of the process that guarantees the reliability of its results. On this basis the role and the structure of background knowledge in measurement and the justification of the conditions of object-relatedness ("objectivity") and subject-independence ("intersubjectivity") of measurement are specifically discussed.

A meta-structural understanding of measurement

Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2016

It is not always clear to what extent the logic and vocabulary of measurement as used in different scientific disciplines are mutually coherent, nor how measurement can be demarcated from, say, opinion. In recent decades there have been a number of attempts to provide necessary and/or sufficient sets of conditions for when measurement is achieved, usually in terms either of inputs (e.g., whether an evaluated property is a quantity), or outputs (e.g., whether a procedure assigns numbers according to a rule). We argue instead that the public trust attributed to measurement is best justified in terms of the structural features of the process rather than of its inputs or outputs. 1 # To whom any correspondence should be addressed. Authors' names are ordered alphabetically. One of the authors is a member of the Joint Committee on Guides in Metrology (JCGM) Working Group 2 (VIM). The opinion expressed in this paper does not necessarily represent the view of this Working Group.

The representational viewpoint of measurement : its conceptual basics and flaws

2017

the paper introduces and formally defines a functional concept of a measuring system, on this basis characterizing the measurement as an evaluation performed by means of a calibrated measuring system. The distinction between exact and uncertain measurement is formalized in terms of the properties of the traceability chain joining the measuring system to the primary standard. The consequence is drawn that uncertain measurements lose the property of relation-preservation, on which the very concept of measurement is founded according to the representational viewpoint. Finally, from the analysis of the inter-relations between calibration and measurement the fundamental reasons of the claimed objectivity and intersubjectivity of measurement are highlighted, a valuable epistemological result to characterize measurement as a particular kind of evaluation.