18
The importance of developing a basic terminology of measurement has already
been broadly acknowledged, and several international organizations have been
cooperating in pursuit of this goal for some decades in the Joint Committee for
Guides in Metrology
1
(JCGM), one of whose outcomes is the International
Vocabulary of Metrology (the so-called VIM, from its French title, Vocabulaire
International de Métrologie; JCGM, 2012), and the other being the Guide to the
expression of uncertainty in measurement (the so-called GUM; JCGM, 2008). The
JCGM documents aim “primarily at harmonizing worldwide current metrological
practices and disseminating scientific and technological knowledge. They constitute
recommendations that member organizations are strongly encouraged to implement” (JCGM, 2009: A.1.2). Of course, such recommendations should apply more
to institutional tasks
2
than to scientific research, which is expected to perform free
exploration not bounded by prescriptions or proscriptions. Nevertheless, the VIM is
a well-established and widely used document, and therefore to the extent possible
we adopt it as a basic reference here. In particular, we adhere to, but go beyond, one
of its assumptions: “In this Vocabulary, it is taken for granted that there is no fundamental difference in the basic principles of measurement in physics, chemistry,
laboratory medicine, biology, or engineering. Furthermore, an attempt has been
made to meet conceptual needs of measurement in fields such as biochemistry, food
science, forensic science, and molecular biology” (JCGM, 2012: Introduction).
With this book we aim at paving a way for the addition of the human sciences—
including psychology, sociology, and economics, as well as fields of application
such as education, health, and management—to this list. Hence, in what follows we
present our attempt to further expand the scope of the fundamental principles of
measurement, so as to include both physical and nonphysical measurement
3
in a
single, consistent concept system.
1 The current member organizations of JCGM are the two intergovernmental organizations concerned with metrology: the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) and the Organisation
Internationale de Métrologie Légale (OIML); the two principal international standardization organizations: the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC); three international unions: the International Union of Pure
and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP),
and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC); and one
international accreditation organization: the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
(ILAC) (JCGM, 2009).
2 An example is legal metrology, the “practice and process of applying statutory and regulatory
structure and enforcement to metrology” (OIML, 2013: 1.01), that is required to produce standardized documents such as the European Union’s Directive of Measuring Instruments (EU, 2014).
3 The distinction between what is physical and what is not is complex, and touches the fundamental
problem of reductionism (can chemistry be considered a part of physics? And what about biology?
etc.), which is a key subject of philosophy of science, but which can safely remain in the background in a discourse on measurement science. We avoid a systematic use of the term “nonphysical” here (and not only for political correctness: characterizing something in negative terms does
not necessarily convey a clear meaning), and use instead the adjectives “human science” and “psychosocial”, in a broad sense, as attributed to a science, a measurement, a property, etc., to emphasize that that entity is not effectively defined in purely physical terms. Of course, some nonphysical
2 Fundamental concepts in measurement
The importance of developing a basic terminology of measurement has already
been broadly acknowledged, and several international organizations have been
cooperating in pursuit of this goal for some decades in the Joint Committee for
Guides in Metrology
1
(JCGM), one of whose outcomes is the International
Vocabulary of Metrology (the so-called VIM, from its French title, Vocabulaire
International de Métrologie; JCGM, 2012), and the other being the Guide to the
expression of uncertainty in measurement (the so-called GUM; JCGM, 2008). The
JCGM documents aim “primarily at harmonizing worldwide current metrological
practices and disseminating scientific and technological knowledge. They constitute
recommendations that member organizations are strongly encouraged to implement” (JCGM, 2009: A.1.2). Of course, such recommendations should apply more
to institutional tasks
2
than to scientific research, which is expected to perform free
exploration not bounded by prescriptions or proscriptions. Nevertheless, the VIM is
a well-established and widely used document, and therefore to the extent possible
we adopt it as a basic reference here. In particular, we adhere to, but go beyond, one
of its assumptions: “In this Vocabulary, it is taken for granted that there is no fundamental difference in the basic principles of measurement in physics, chemistry,
laboratory medicine, biology, or engineering. Furthermore, an attempt has been
made to meet conceptual needs of measurement in fields such as biochemistry, food
science, forensic science, and molecular biology” (JCGM, 2012: Introduction).
With this book we aim at paving a way for the addition of the human sciences—
including psychology, sociology, and economics, as well as fields of application
such as education, health, and management—to this list. Hence, in what follows we
present our attempt to further expand the scope of the fundamental principles of
measurement, so as to include both physical and nonphysical measurement
3
in a
single, consistent concept system.
1 The current member organizations of JCGM are the two intergovernmental organizations concerned with metrology: the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) and the Organisation
Internationale de Métrologie Légale (OIML); the two principal international standardization organizations: the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC); three international unions: the International Union of Pure
and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP),
and the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC); and one
international accreditation organization: the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
(ILAC) (JCGM, 2009).
2 An example is legal metrology, the “practice and process of applying statutory and regulatory
structure and enforcement to metrology” (OIML, 2013: 1.01), that is required to produce standardized documents such as the European Union’s Directive of Measuring Instruments (EU, 2014).
3 The distinction between what is physical and what is not is complex, and touches the fundamental
problem of reductionism (can chemistry be considered a part of physics? And what about biology?
etc.), which is a key subject of philosophy of science, but which can safely remain in the background in a discourse on measurement science. We avoid a systematic use of the term “nonphysical” here (and not only for political correctness: characterizing something in negative terms does
not necessarily convey a clear meaning), and use instead the adjectives “human science” and “psychosocial”, in a broad sense, as attributed to a science, a measurement, a property, etc., to emphasize that that entity is not effectively defined in purely physical terms. Of course, some nonphysical
2 Fundamental concepts in measurement