252
bodies, systems, phenomena, events, processes, individuals, organizations, etc.),
with such information being (3) in the form of values of the property intended to be
measured. This is consistent with the VIM’s definition quoted previously and, as
with the VIM’s definition, it is an abstract, black box (i.e., input-output) characterization of measurement, which nevertheless serves to delimit its scope, in particular
by distinguishing measurement from computation (where the latter produces information from other information).
Even without “opening the box”, such a characterization already includes several
key conditions, related to
(i) the procedural nature of the process, highlighting that measurement is designed
on purpose and therefore justifying the focus on the components of the process
that implement the procedure;
(ii) the definition of the property intended to be measured and to which the produced information is attributed, highlighting that measurement requires modeling stages that are preliminary to data acquisition; and therefore
(iii) the unavoidable compresence in the process of both empirical components,
which make the interaction with an empirical property possible, and informational components, which make the attribution of an informational entity
possible.
As discussed throughout this book, these are necessary conditions for a process of
evaluation of an empirical property to be considered a measurement. But, as stated,
we are also looking for sufficient conditions.
8.3.3 … and a common emphasis on trustworthiness …
As was previously observed, measurement is usually associated with trustworthiness, and therefore the quality of its results. In Sect. 7.4.3 and elsewhere (e.g., Mari
et al., 2012) we have argued that the trustworthiness (or “dependability”; see, e.g.,
Maul, Mari, Torres Irribarra, & Wilson, 2018) of measurement results requires that
they convey information that is object related and subject independent, or, more
explicitly:
1. Information that is specific to the measurand and, therefore, to a given property
of the object under measurement: This means that the provided information
should be independent of any other property of the object or the surrounding
environment, which includes both the measuring system and the subject who is
measuring. This corresponds to guaranteeing that measurement results actually
provide information about the measurand and not some other property. This condition is about the appropriate attribution of information to its claimed object:
hence, it is a requirement of object relatedness, or objectivity for short.
8 Conclusion
bodies, systems, phenomena, events, processes, individuals, organizations, etc.),
with such information being (3) in the form of values of the property intended to be
measured. This is consistent with the VIM’s definition quoted previously and, as
with the VIM’s definition, it is an abstract, black box (i.e., input-output) characterization of measurement, which nevertheless serves to delimit its scope, in particular
by distinguishing measurement from computation (where the latter produces information from other information).
Even without “opening the box”, such a characterization already includes several
key conditions, related to
(i) the procedural nature of the process, highlighting that measurement is designed
on purpose and therefore justifying the focus on the components of the process
that implement the procedure;
(ii) the definition of the property intended to be measured and to which the produced information is attributed, highlighting that measurement requires modeling stages that are preliminary to data acquisition; and therefore
(iii) the unavoidable compresence in the process of both empirical components,
which make the interaction with an empirical property possible, and informational components, which make the attribution of an informational entity
possible.
As discussed throughout this book, these are necessary conditions for a process of
evaluation of an empirical property to be considered a measurement. But, as stated,
we are also looking for sufficient conditions.
8.3.3 … and a common emphasis on trustworthiness …
As was previously observed, measurement is usually associated with trustworthiness, and therefore the quality of its results. In Sect. 7.4.3 and elsewhere (e.g., Mari
et al., 2012) we have argued that the trustworthiness (or “dependability”; see, e.g.,
Maul, Mari, Torres Irribarra, & Wilson, 2018) of measurement results requires that
they convey information that is object related and subject independent, or, more
explicitly:
1. Information that is specific to the measurand and, therefore, to a given property
of the object under measurement: This means that the provided information
should be independent of any other property of the object or the surrounding
environment, which includes both the measuring system and the subject who is
measuring. This corresponds to guaranteeing that measurement results actually
provide information about the measurand and not some other property. This condition is about the appropriate attribution of information to its claimed object:
hence, it is a requirement of object relatedness, or objectivity for short.
8 Conclusion