ajb's Can O' Worms (Measurement)

[ydoaPs]

In a recently bumped thread, ajb said the following:

My philosophy is quite pragmatic here: 'real' things are what I can measure. Of course this open up a can or worms with what we are actually measuring and how this relates to the theory at hand!

But that's not the first time measurement has been mentioned. There was, for example, this half tongue-in-cheeck exchange between myself and PeterJ:

 

 

I don't know, and nor do you. What has his first-person report got to do with anything anyway? Why ask, why not just meausre whether he is conscious? Oh yes, because you can't.

Why look at the level of the mercury in the thermometer when you can just measure temperature? Oh, yes, because you can't.

 

But it's only half tongue-in-cheeck. There's a real issue here. Measurement is an important part of science, so let's talk about it. We can discuss it in a forum, if you will.

 

What, exactly, is measurement? Is objective measurement possible? It seems like it's got to be a specific type of observation. It seems like Measurement is the most objective kind of observation. In the course of the discussion, we'll inevitably come across more questions. Let's address them as they come.

 

Intuitively, observation is straightforward. You use your senses and things appear to you. But, it's not that simple. Even the most basic of observation is loaded with theory. Ernst Mach tried to strip science of all metaphysics, and his project shows us just how much theory is involved in observation.

 

Sensation is a complex manifold of experience. Without metaphysics, however, we can't say that these are experiences of anything. They're just experiences. In philosophy lingo, we just get the phenomena, not the noumena. But it's more than that. We don't get to assume noumena.

 

Each sensation is different. No two of these complex manifolds of experience are the same. Since they're all different, and we cant assume that any parts of the different manifolds are ontologically identical. We can't say that this red blob is the same red blob as that slightly different red blob.

 

But we do. This, however, is a lie. It's a useful fiction. In Mach's terms, it's economy of thought. Objects of perception and the persistence of said objects are an economical lie.

 

That level of theory-ladenness, however, isn't given much thought since (as Kant, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, et al point out), this happens prior to sensation reaching consciousness. The brain is not passive in perception. Perception is an active process.

 

So, objects at all (both noumenal and phenomenal), already require theory. All perception is theory-laden. All observation is theory-laden.

 

Measurement is a specific kind of observation. It's supposed to be more objective. It gives numbers to observation, so it feels more precise.

 

The simplest measurement is probably length. You take one object and another and compare them. One object you take to be your scale. My table is about three and a half feet (literally) long. This isn't as simple as it seems. It requires more than just objects.

 

It requires rigid (or semirigid) objects. It doesn't say much to say that my table is about three and a half feet long if both my table and my feet are constantly changing shape and length.

 

So, in order to have measurement of properties that are directly present in observation, we need extra theory. But what about things that aren't directly present to observation. Take my example with PeterJ, for example.

 

When we measure temperature, we stick a thermometer in something. What are we observing in this measurement? We're observing liquid level in a scaled tube. Literally, we're measuring length. So, we're 'starting' with the previous several layers of theory. Temperature, however, isn't the same as length. We need to interpret the length through the lens of theory in order to reach temperature.

 

Do you know how a Stern-Gerlach device works? I don't. I bet it takes a level or two more of theory-laden interpretation, though.

 

So, measurement is our already theory-laden observation plus more layers of theoretical interpretation and calculation. How much calculation before it stops being measurement?

 

Does Laplace's demon measure future states when it calculates them? If I measure out my reactants and then mix them, have I measured the product by doing stoichiometry on the measured values of the reactants?

[Reg Prescott]

Congrats, ydoaPs! This thread addresses a very important issue. In many posts throughout the site, I've noticed a rather (philosophically) naive view to the effect that, while theories may come and go, facts are somehow untainted; facts are simply given to us; we bring nothing to the encounter; facts are pristine, so to speak, and thus quite immutable and separate from theory. To encapsulate this view: "We might draw different conclusions from them but we can all agree on the facts".

 

Your comments on the theory-ladenness of observation (i.e. facts) belie this untenable (I believe) view.

 

Is it a duck or is it a rabbit?

 

I look forward to watching this thread progress.

[ydoaPs]

Congrats, ydoaPs! This thread addresses a very important issue. In many posts throughout the site, I've noticed a rather (philosophically) naive view to the effect that, while theories may come and go, facts are somehow untainted; facts are simply given to us; we bring nothing to the encounter; facts are pristine, so to speak, and thus quite immutable and separate from theory. To encapsulate this view: "We might draw different conclusions from them but we can all agree on the facts".

 

Your comments on the theory-ladenness of observation (i.e. facts) belie this untenable (I believe) view.

 

Is it a duck or is it a rabbit?

 

I look forward to watching this thread progress.

You've got to be careful with the f word. An observation alone does not constitute a fact. Epistemology today is full of various Gettier problems. Take the fake barn examples. The observation the driver makes is of a barn, but it's not true that the driver saw a barn.

 

Even a true belief isn't necessarily a fact. The Goldbach conjecture is a good example here. It's either true or false that all even numbers greater than or equal to 4 are the sum of two primes. There's no proof either way. Some people believe that it is true. Some people believe that it is false. Either the people who believe that it is true are correct or the people who believe that it is false are correct. But neither option is a fact despite being a true belief.

 

Facts are socially constructed.

[Reg Prescott]

You've got to be careful with the f word. An observation alone does not constitute a fact. Epistemology today is full of various Gettier problems. Take the fake barn examples. The observation the driver makes is of a barn, but it's not true that the driver saw a barn.

 

Agreed! The term is notoriously ambiguous. Do we mean (i) what's out there, i.e. reality (shudder!), or (ii) our statements or reports of what's supposed to be out there.

Even a true belief isn't necessarily a fact. The Goldbach conjecture is a good example here. It's either true or false that all even numbers greater than or equal to 4 are the sum of two primes. There's no proof either way. Some people believe that it is true. Some people believe that it is false. Either the people who believe that it is true are correct or the people who believe that it is false are correct. But neither option is a fact despite being a true belief.

 

Granting a realist attitude on these matters, I think we can say the statement must be either true or false, regardless of whether we can know which. Put another way, one of the statements -- "all even numbers greater than or equal to 4 are the sum of two primes" and "not all even numbers greater than or equal to 4 are the sum of two primes" -- is a fact.

 

I think you'll find, though, that certain contemporary antirealists such as Michael Dummett, for example, opt for a third conclusion: insofar as it defies verification the Goldbach conjecture is neither true nor false, but indeterminate. In other words, there is no fact of the matter, counterintuitive though this probably strikes most of us.

 

I might, of course, be misreading him. (He's hard to understand )

 

We see parallels here with orthodox (Copenhagen) interpretations of quantum physics, and the abhorrence thereof aroused in realists such as Einstein. Does the photon pass through the right slit or the left slit? Einstein the realist insists it must be one or the other, even if we don't or can't know which one. On the other hand, Bohr, with his positivist-inspired antirealist leanings, tells us the answer is indeterminate; the question is ill formed. To emphasize, on Bohr's account, it's not just our knowledge that hangs in limbo, but reality itself. Once again, there is no fact of the matter...

 

... assuming I'm not confused again

Edited November 12, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Klaynos]

There is a further aspect that should probably be considered. That of our definitions. The kg is not some magical unit laid down by the universe but an arbitrary lump of stuff that we've defined that if you measure in a certain way is 1 kg. Other methods of measuring mass should be able to be compared back to that original method with an understanding of errors.

[studiot]

 

What, exactly, is measurement?

 

In my experience, "what exactly is.......?" questions end up going round in circles more often than not.

 

Because you have to start somewhere (definitions as Klaynos mentions) in order to have some discussion material to work on.

 

'exactly' starts by implying a measurement.

 

'is' opens up the whole existance/reality debate.

 

'what' presupposes existence, since if there is no existence how can the existence of the 'what' be discussed?

 

I'm not trying to be akward, only a three word +1 sentence and already we see how difficult general philisophy is.

 

Perhaps the best we can do in these circumstances is to introduce, consider and discuss, specific aspects.

 

One issue is what to include and what to exclude in what we regard as 'measurement'.

ydoaPs provides a concrete example, but what if we are measurand is abstract, say the position of a mountain or a ship?

We cannot measure the position without performing (or having some machine perform for us) calculations.

 

So are calculations measurements?

Is the calculation 3 x 4 = 12 in some way a measurement of 12?

 

This brings in another point.

 

In simple arithmetic we confidently expect that 3 x 4 = 4 x 3.

That is order does not matter when making our measurement that involves more than one thing.

Can measurements be broken down into simple and compound?

 

But wait, the whole basis of modern quantum theory can be traced to the pure mathematical notion that order does matter and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and other uncertainty principles can be derived from the fact that in some mathematical calculations

[math]A*B \ne B*A[/math]

 

Klaynos also mentioned accuracy. Modern measurement theory does not divorce accuracy from the measurement.

 

So the question and answer is interesting.

How much does that bag of apples you are carrying weigh, Bill?

Ten tons.

 

Well is that inaccurate estimate a 'measurement'?

If not, how near does the estimate have to be to be considered a measurement?

And what is the difference between a measurement and an estimate?

Which brings us back to my earlier point.

Do we consider 3x4=12 a measurement?

If you say no, what if I asked for the area of a room, you had measured as 3m x 4m?

 

ydoaPs you have introduced a very tricky subject rather neatly. +1

Edited November 12, 2015 by studiot

[Klaynos]

 

So the question and answer is interesting.

How much does that bag of apples you are carrying weigh, Bill?

Ten tons.

 

Well is that inaccurate estimate a 'measurement'?

If not, how near does the estimate have to be to be considered a measurement?

 

How about [math]10ton\pm10ton[/math]?

[Sensei]

Can measurements be broken down into simple and compound?

If you measure mass of some macroscopic object to be f.e. 1 kg, it's basically summed masses of the all atoms making this object.

If you can count quantity of elements/compounds (like in mass spectrometry), one ionized atom by atom, one ionized compound by compound, it'll be pretty accurate.

(average mass of single element/compound multiplied by their quantity in say billions instances (II world war nuclear bombs U-235 were made by mass spectrometers like devices)).

 

If you measure volume of some solid object it is volumes of the all atoms together, plus spaces between them. The less spaces, the more accurate results.

 

If you measure area of some object it is all areas (on surface) of the all atoms together, plus spaces between them. The less spaces, the more accurate results.

 

Volume/area measurement tend to be pretty inaccurate though. Varying very much from material to material, element to element. And temperature/pressure dependent.

 

For measurements done here on Earth, we can be pretty sure results from these measurements. As they can be repeated limitless times.

And performed various different ways to be sure results are correct. f.e. to calculate 1 m^3 of water we can do electrolysis of water, and turn it to Hydrogen gas and Oxygen gas. Ionize Hydrogen, and count quantity of protons in mass spectrometer.

 

This is extended further to the entire Universe. f.e. uniform rest-mass of proton or electron.

 

Do we consider 3x4=12 a measurement?

Math equations are not measurement of physical object.

 

If you say no, what if I asked for the area of a room, you had measured as 3m x 4m?

You sort of measured quantity of atoms that are making floor of your room.

There is quite large quantity of atoms of various elements (118), and various isotopes (3142), that are in unimaginable quantity of configurations making your floor.

 

What is "physical measurement" is all the time introduced subject in threads in Speculation section of this forum.

 

When we measure temperature, we stick a thermometer in something. What are we observing in this measurement? We're observing liquid level in a scaled tube. Literally, we're measuring length. So, we're 'starting' with the previous several layers of theory. Temperature, however, isn't the same as length. We need to interpret the length through the lens of theory in order to reach temperature.

This is actually amount of energy. The more energy the higher temperature, and the more extended volume of Hg.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Sensei

[studiot]

Hello, Sensei.

You misunderstood my comment about simple and compound.

Perhaps it's a language thing.

 

I am using the terms in a specific technical way, in this case referring to the number of independent quantities that have to be measure to complete the measurement.

 

For instance for the position of the ship two quantities have to be measured, latitude and longitude.

For the position of the mountain summit, three viz lat, long and elevation.

 

These are compund measurements.

 

Simple measurments measure only one thing and can be directly measured, for instance area and volume

can both be directly measured as can the number of apples in the bag or its weight.

 

Hope this clarifies my point.

 

Math equations are not measurement of physical object.

 

I didn't say they were measurements of physical objects.

 

Do you consider physicality in some way necessary to measurements?

Edited November 12, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

Even a true belief isn't necessarily a fact. The Goldbach conjecture is a good example here. It's either true or false that all even numbers greater than or equal to 4 are the sum of two primes. There's no proof either way. Some people believe that it is true. Some people believe that it is false. Either the people who believe that it is true are correct or the people who believe that it is false are correct. But neither option is a fact despite being a true belief.

 

There is a third possibility (I don't know if it applies in this case - it may only apply to axioms).

 

An axiom may not be true or false; it could be a choice. For example, Euclid's 5th postulate was assumed to be true for thousands of years, until someone realised that you could make other choices and invent/discover alternative branches of mathematics.

[cladking]

 

Facts are socially constructed.

 

First thing in the whole thread I disagree with!!!

 

Don't get me wrong, certainly scientific "fact" is a socially derived thing just as all "fact" has a social component.

 

However "fact" certainly does exist independently of language and experimental science that springs fdrom it. We can never be actuall;y certain of any fact and there's a tendency for individual to more likely be wrong the more certain they are. Sometimes even expert opinion is more likely to be wrong than common sense or the flip of a coin. I call "facts" to be things I'm 99.9% confident. I'm typing on a computer that employs digital software to communicate with other entities who are all humans. This is a "fact". I'm 99.9% confident that it's true. The same applies to the thermometer. I'm 99.9% confident that warmer bodies will register higher temperatures and their warmth is directly proportional to the reading. The scale and numbers are irrelevancies unless I need to communicate temperature (average heat) to another individual. Again, I'm 99.9% confident this is all true.

 

Of course this isn't the way most people think.

 

Very interesting thread thus far.

 

In my experience, "what exactly is.......?" questions end up going round in circles more often than not.

 

Because you have to start somewhere (definitions as Klaynos mentions) in order to have some discussion material to work on.

 

'exactly' starts by implying a measurement.

 

'is' opens up the whole existance/reality debate.

 

'what' presupposes existence, since if there is no existence how can the existence of the 'what' be discussed?

 

I'm not trying to be akward, only a three word +1 sentence and already we see how difficult general philisophy is.

 

Perhaps the best we can do in these circumstances is to introduce, consider and discuss, specific aspects.

 

One issue is what to include and what to exclude in what we regard as 'measurement'.

ydoaPs provides a concrete example, but what if we are measurand is abstract, say the position of a mountain or a ship?

We cannot measure the position without performing (or having some machine perform for us) calculations.

 

So are calculations measurements?

Is the calculation 3 x 4 = 12 in some way a measurement of 12?

 

This brings in another point.

 

In simple arithmetic we confidently expect that 3 x 4 = 4 x 3.

That is order does not matter when making our measurement that involves more than one thing.

Can measurements be broken down into simple and compound?

 

But wait, the whole basis of modern quantum theory can be traced to the pure mathematical notion that order does matter and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and other uncertainty principles can be derived from the fact that in some mathematical calculations

[math]A*B \ne B*A[/math]

 

Klaynos also mentioned accuracy. Modern measurement theory does not divorce accuracy from the measurement.

 

So the question and answer is interesting.

How much does that bag of apples you are carrying weigh, Bill?

Ten tons.

 

Well is that inaccurate estimate a 'measurement'?

If not, how near does the estimate have to be to be considered a measurement?

And what is the difference between a measurement and an estimate?

Which brings us back to my earlier point.

Do we consider 3x4=12 a measurement?

If you say no, what if I asked for the area of a room, you had measured as 3m x 4m?

 

ydoaPs you have introduced a very tricky subject rather neatly. +1

 

 

3 x 4 = 12 isn't a measurement but a quantification of reality itself. We simply lose sight of the meanings of the terms and how we process concepts. But none of these terms "3", "4", "x", or "12" are real. Indeed, even "=" doesn't exist in the same sense as three piles of four apples makes twelve apples to the degree that each term is properly applied; that is applied in a way that is consistent with the meaning of each term and the word "apple(s)". Certainly there is a great deal of harmony and balance to twelve being equivalent to three piles of four.

 

What we have here isn't a failure of science, math, or application but rather a failure to communicate. Unless you see that the words are mere constructs and everything is dependent not only on metaphysics and the language we use to establish definitions and understand reality then you will misapprehend the meanings of terms and the nature of the reality no one can directly perceive. We make sense of sensory input by arranging our brain to conform to it but we still use language as the operating system. Modern language is not the only possible operating system for humans.

[conway]

If we declare a seperation between space and value. And if we then declare that space is a quantity of a dimension (dimension being that which we measure), and that value is quantities of existince that "fill" a given space. And also then declare that some quantities of space and or value are defined or undefined, infinte of finite, fractional or whole, negative or positve, then all things can be quantified with only the exception of that which is undefined space and undefined value.

Edited November 14, 2015 by conway

[studiot]

 

3 x 4 = 12 isn't a measurement but a quantification of reality itself.

 

You are not the first in this thread to deny this as a measurement, although I have to wonder about substituting 'quantification'.

 

Neither you nor the others who don't like my measurement of area (can you offer a direct single quantity measurement to replace length times breadth) have offered any definitive definition of 'measurement'.

 

 

So here are some more thoughts to ponder.

 

Consider a single photon approaching an atom or molecule.

 

It is, or is not, captured by the molecule.

 

Is this a measurement?

 

Well yes it's is a definiteve measurement of the energy level of the capturing electron - it either fits the energy gap or it doesn't.

This is the same as granny using a hole gauge to measure her knitting needle or a mechanic to measure a drill size.

They either fit or they don't.

 

Again these new examples show something interesting.

Measurement as a non mathematical technical process.

 

Here is another.

I have a telephone socket tester that displays coloured lights depending on the connection of the wiring., reverse or correct and other functions.

It measures wiring polarity correct, ringer operation and within range voltage.

Edited November 14, 2015 by studiot

[swansont]

If we declare a seperation between space and value. And if we then declare that space is a quantity of a dimension (dimension being that which we measure), and that value is quantities of existince that "fill" a given space. And also then declare that some quantities of space and or value are defined or undefined, infinte of finite, fractional or whole, negative or positve, then all things can be quantified with only the exception of that which is undefined space and undefined value.

 

!

Moderator Note

Do not introduce your speculations into mainstream threads. This goes double for threads that have been closed

[cladking]

Neither you nor the others who don't like my measurement of area (can you offer a direct single quantity measurement to replace length times breadth) have offered any definitive definition of 'measurement'.

 

 

 

 

Measurement isn't any more "real' than area. "Distance" is real and "distance" is the concept we're trying to quantify. Take a square that is twelve inches on a side. We say that the lenght can be multiplied by the width or the width by the lenght to determine that it's 144 in ^ 2. But this square is also 1 ft by 1 ft so it's eqally true that it's 1 ft ^ 2. These numbers both fit and are equal because this is how reality is. I often redefine things to equal one so the math can be done in my mind more easily.

 

I say distance is real but we need to remember even this is a perception and means of understanding what we see. It's is always either this "distance" or time which prevents two objects from occupying the same space.

[studiot]

Measurement isn't any more "real' than area. "Distance" is real and "distance" is the concept we're trying to quantify.

 

 

 

I think you have it bass ackward sir!

 

Measurement is in the title, the introduction and specification of this thread.

Distance is not. It only appears amongst a collection of examples presented by ydoaPs.

 

I can;t see how anyone reading post1 can take anything other than measurement as the focus.

 

 

What, exactly, is measurement?

 

This said, the rest of your reasoning falls.

[cladking]

 

 

I think you have it bass ackward sir!

 

Measurement is in the title, the introduction and specification of this thread.

Distance is not. It only appears amongst a collection of examples presented by ydoaPs.

 

I can;t see how anyone reading post1 can take anything other than measurement as the focus.

 

 

 

As he said; measurement is distance. Of course we can feel a child's forehead to guage whether he's sick or not and we don't need an anemometer to tell us why our hat fell off. Measurement is mostly quantification of constructs and mostly related to distance. We compare something we "know" to fit a construct to a physical object of phenomenon to determine how they relate to each other.

 

Perhaps I am missing the point. Measurement seems highly straight forward to me and simply a part of observation.

[Klaynos]

 

As he said; measurement is distance. Of course we can feel a child's forehead to guage whether he's sick or not and we don't need an anemometer to tell us why our hat fell off. Measurement is mostly quantification of constructs and mostly related to distance. We compare something we "know" to fit a construct to a physical object of phenomenon to determine how they relate to each other.

 

Perhaps I am missing the point. Measurement seems highly straight forward to me and simply a part of observation.

These are just low precision measurements. If the kids forehead was 100degC you'd notice, if it was -50degC you'd notice. You can confine it further I've just picked the obvious limits.

 

I'm not sure I distinguish between measurement and observation. It's certainly not that a human is involved in one and not the other.

[studiot]

 

Cladking

As he said; measurement is distance.

 

In the absence of further comments from ydoaPs I can only go by what he said.

 

Please quote where he said precisely the above.

 

 

ydoaPs

The simplest measurement is probably length.

 

This quote has an entirely different meaning from your version.

[Sensei]

Intuitively, observation is straightforward. You use your senses and things appear to you. But, it's not that simple. Even the most basic of observation is loaded with theory.

If we make measurement equal to observation, what with animals, and other living organisms?

If observation and measurement is equal, they're doing measurement as well.

Is their observation loaded with theory?

They learn and remember world using their own senses.

And then interpret reality to not hurt them self.

Not jump from cliff (so they must know gravity? and what happens to body that fall from too high altitude. Chamois will jump from 1-2 meters, and refuse to jump from larger altitude in mountains).

Not hit hard wall (so they must know what is hardness/softness of materials?) etc.

 

Apparently "animal's theory of physics" must be very similar to our theory..

So they must have self understanding of laws of physics, without actually theory-ladenness in following understanding of this term:

http://www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/quine/theory_ladenness.html

 

That level of theory-ladenness, however, isn't given much thought since, this happens prior to sensation reaching consciousness.

All living organisms have consciousness?

 

Some scientists who work on consciousness, are considering that self recognition in mirror is the first sign of consciousness of animal or human.

Kids are self recognizing them self in mirror at 2 or 3 year old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

 

Imagine 10 people. 1 of them claiming to see ghost, 9 don't.

There are two possibilities. 9 are right, and 1 has imagination/brain failure. etc.

Or 1 is right and see (measure? making observations?) of something really real to him/her, while others can't do it.

Who is right? How to objectively check this?

 

Scientific measurement requires repetition of measurements/observations.

And general objectiveness: no matter if measurement is done by electronics (lack of consciousness?) or human (or animal?), or which exactly human (as many as possible people must be able to share the same experience, and being able to repeat experiment any time).

Once done measurement, that is never able to be repeated will be rejected by scientific community.

Similar like observation of ghost by 1/10 people in example above.

If measurement is done by electronics (like digital camera), we cannot longer say it's imagination, illusion or mental illness.

What we see is just recording done by machine.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Sensei

[studiot]

 

Scientific measurement requires repetition of measurements/observations.

And general objectiveness: no matter if measurement is done by electronics (lack of consciousness?) or human (or animal?), or which exactly human (as many as possible people must be able to share the same experience, and being able to repeat experiment any time).

Once done measurement, that is never able to be repeated will be rejected. Similar like observation of ghost by 1/10 people in example above.

 

 

 

We have proof testing because tests to destruction can never be repeated, but when made ultimate results are never rejected.

 

But you did make some other good points.

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by studiot

[Sensei]

We have proof testing because tests to destruction can never be repeated, but when made they are never rejected.

It's something else. It's exam whether calculations made by engineers were right, whether building workers did job right, whether used materials have durability within limits etc. etc.

If something was ignored at designing or building stage, it can end up f.e. like Tacoma bridge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)

 

Proof tests can be also screwed up. Metal properties change depending on temperature/pressure. It will have different volume in cold winter, than in hot summer, or altitude.

One pilot destroyed his airplane because of too dramatic movement of cabriolet in turbulence caused by previous airplane in landing queue (he learned this in pilot school).

Engineers never took it into account while designing it. Nobody thought about so dramatic changes from far left, to far right, back and forth, several times, in their calcs. And it caused lost of whole vertical stabilizer.

None engineer thought/calculated what happens if airplane causing turbulence is starting turning. Turbulences add up behind it in precise location. If there is smaller airplane behind it, and turbulence is on one wing, and not present on second, it can cause tail spin..

 

I was thinking about scientific measurement in sense of gaining knowledge, or checking previously gained knowledge.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Sensei

[cladking]

These are just low precision measurements. If the kids forehead was 100degC you'd notice, if it was -50degC you'd notice. You can confine it further I've just picked the obvious limits.

 

I'm not sure I distinguish between measurement and observation. It's certainly not that a human is involved in one and not the other.

 

I'm not sure to exactly what degree I distinguish between measurement and observation either. However observation is virtually theory free. When you are observing you're supposed to be experiencing a thing or event outside of known explanations and pre-conceptions. Of course this is merely an ideal and always impossible.

 

Measurement on the other hand is just converting a property of an object into terms that are standardized for communication or calculation. Not only can a 1 foot square shape be defined in many ways but it can also be measured in many ways. All such measurements and calculations provide the same results within the scope of the equipment and the margin of error. It's true most individuals will see this all in theory and construct but it really isn't. Just as one giraffe plus one giraffe makes three giraffes it's very straight forward. Each individual gets equivalent results whether the product is a giraffe or a square foot.

 

Perhaps it could be said that measurement is a thing done by people observation is a thing done by science. I fully understand that most people don't see it this way but I believe this is due to the operating system of the mind obscuring the means by which it operates. Just as we don't observe reality directly we don't observe the way the mind works directly because it is obscured by language in which we think as proven by the oft held belief that we think and hence know that we exist.

If we make measurement equal to observation, what with animals, and other living organisms?

If observation and measurement is equal, they're doing measurement as well.

Is their observation loaded with theory?

 

 

The irony is that animals understand theory better than most people. This is simply because the natural world is wired directly into their brains. No, it's not "instinct" it's the way their brains work, it's the operating system of their brains. This operating system is based on "mathematics", or more precisely, the same logic that underlies math. Goats walk on the sides of mountains because the alternative is death. Birds communicate while scanning the ground and sky for predators. Those which fail any part of this behavior will not lend their genes to future generations. They "all" do this while each doing it in subtlely different ways as a matter of "personality".

 

Animals are excellent observers but lack the extensive knowledge of humans to make sense of most of their observations. Humans are generally extremely poor observers because we see what we expect prefentially to the reality. Even when modern humans make good observation it will still be interpreted within the construct of models. Most scientists might do a little better observing anomalies than expected things because these stand out as needing further observation. Most peoples' models are so poor they couldn't tell rope from a snake unless it bit them.

[studiot]

 

I was thinking about scientific measurement in sense of gaining knowledge, or checking previously gained knowledge.

 

 

 

But that's what proof testing is.

 

Suppose you have loading sling.

 

You will want to know that it will perform up to and beyond its rated lifting capacity.

 

You obviously can't test it to destruction to find out what its ultimate capacity is so you test it to a 'proof' level, which is greater than it will be called upon to lift in normal working (its rated capacity), but not great enough to break it or even damage it.

 

In the UK lifting devices have to be proof tested every year like this.

You pictured a bridge.

I have proof tested hundreds of bridge deck beams in this way before installation.

That is measured the performance at a load less than breakpoint, but higher than working.

There is reams of theory about this.

Edited November 16, 2015 by studiot