Advertisement

Individuating quantities

  • Eran TalEmail author
Article

Abstract

When discrepancies are discovered between the outcomes of different measurement procedures, two sorts of explanation are open to scientists. Either (i) some of the outcomes are inaccurate or (ii) the procedures are not measuring the same quantity. I argue that, due to the possibility of systematic error, the choice between (i) and (ii) is underdetermined in principle by any possible evidence. Consequently, foundationalist criteria of quantity individuation are either empty or circular. I propose a coherentist, model-based account of measurement that avoids the underdetermination problem, and use this account to explain how scientists individuate quantities in practice.

Keywords

Measurement Systematic error Quantity Models Idealization Underdetermination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Margaret Morrison, Ian Hacking, Anjan Chakravartty, Mary Morgan, Jacob Stegenga, Allan Franklin and Aaron Zimmerman for helpful comments on drafts of this article. I am thankful to Richard Healy for inviting me to speak at the 2018 meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association and for nominating my paper for publication. I am also grateful for the feedback I received from audiences at the University of Hannover, Bielefeld University, University of South Carolina, University of Cambridge, and the conference “Error in the Sciences” held in Leiden in 2011. This work was supported by a Research Grant for New Academics from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Société et Culture (FRQSC) (Grant No. 2018-NP-205463).

References

  1. BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures). (2006). The International System of Units (SI), 8th Edition. https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/. Accessed 13 Mar 2009.
  2. Birge, R. T. (1932). The calculation of errors by the method of least squares. Physical Review, 40(2), 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boumans, M. (2015). Science outside the laboratory: Measurement in field science and economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bridgman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
  5. Byerly, H. C., & Lazara, V. A. (1973). Realist foundations of measurement. Philosophy of Science, 40(1), 10–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, N. R. (1920). Physics: The elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carnap, R. (1995 [1966]). An introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  8. Cartwright, N. (1999). The Dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, H. (2001). How to take realism beyond foot-stamping. Philosophy, 76(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diez, J. A. (2002). A program for the individuation of scientific concepts. Synthese, 130(1), 13–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dingle, H. (1950). A theory of measurement. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellis, B. (1966). Basic concepts of measurement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Heavner, T. P., Donley, E. A., Levi, F., Costanzo, G., Parker, T. E., Shirley, J. H., et al. (2014). First accuracy evaluation of NIST-F2. Metrologia, 51, 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hempel, C. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Hudson, R. (2018). The reality of Jean Perrin’s atoms and molecules. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Itano, W. M., Lewis, L. L., & Wineland, D. J. (1982). Shift of 2S1/2 hyperfine splittings due to blackbody radiation. Physical Review A, 25(2), 1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. JCGM. (2008). Evaluation of measurement dataGuide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html. Accessed 29 Nov 2012.
  20. JCGM. (2012). International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM), 3rd edition2008 version with minor corrections. http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.html. Accessed 8 June 2013.
  21. Jefferts, S. R., et al. (2002). Accuracy evaluation of NIST-F1. Metrologia, 39, 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krantz, D. H., Suppes, P., Luce, R. D., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement: Additive and polynomial representations. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Mach, E. (1966 [1896]). Critique of the concept of temperature. In Basic concepts of measurement (pp. 183–196) (B. Ellis Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16(3), 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morrison, M. (1999). Models as autonomous agents. In M. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 38–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morrison, M., & Morgan, M. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In M. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 10–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Panfilo, G., Harmegnies, A., & Tisserand, L. (2012). A new prediction algorithm for the generation of International Atomic Time. Metrologia, 49, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swoyer, C. (1987). The metaphysics of measurement. In J. Forge (Ed.), Measurement, realism and objectivity (pp. 235–290). Kufstein: Riedel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tal, E. (2011). How accurate is the standard second? Philosophy of Science, 78(5), 1082–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tal, E. (2016). Making time: A study in the epistemology of measurement. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 67, 297–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tal, E. (2017a). Calibration: Modelling the measurement process. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 65–66, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tal, E. (2017b). A model-based epistemology of measurement. In N. Mößner & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Reasoning in measurement (pp. 233–253). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. van Fraassen, B. C. (2008). Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. von Helmholtz, H. (1930 [1887]). Counting and measuring (C. L. Bryan, Trans.). New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations