Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:52:54.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Foundational aspects of theories of measurement1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Dana Scott
Affiliation:
Princeton University and Stanford University
Patrick Suppes
Affiliation:
Princeton University and Stanford University

Extract

It is a scientific platitude that there can be neither precise control nor prediction of phenomena without measurement. Disciplines are diverse as cosmology and social psychology provide evidence that it is nearly useless to have an exactly formulated quantitative theory if empirically feasible methods of measurement cannot be developed for a substantial portion of the quantitative concepts of the theory. Given a physical concept like that of mass or a psychological concept like that of habit strength, the point of a theory of measurement is to lay bare the structure of a collection of empirical relations which may be used to measure the characteristic of empirical phenomena corresponding to the concept. Why a collection of relations? From an abstract standpoint a set of empirical data consists of a collection of relations between specified objects. For example, data on the relative weights of a set of physical objects are easily represented by an ordering relation on the set; additional data, and a fortiori an additional relation, are needed to yield a satisfactory quantitative measurement of the masses of the objects.

The major source of difficulty in providing an adequate theory of measurement is to construct relations which have an exact and reasonable numerical interpretation and yet also have a technically practical empirical interpretation. The classical analyses of the measurement of mass, for instance, have the embarrassing consequence that the basic set of objects measured must be infinite. Here the relations postulated have acceptable numerical interpretations, but are utterly unsuitable empirically. Conversely, as we shall see in the last section of this paper, the structure of relations which have a sound empirical meaning often cannot be succinctly characterized so as to guarantee a desired numerical interpretation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We would like to record here our indebteness to Professor Alfred Tarski whose clear and precise formulation of the mathematical theory of models has greatly influenced our presentation (see [7]). Although our theories of measurement do not constitute special cases of the arithmetical classes of Tarski, the notions are closely related, and we have made use of results and methods from the theory of models. This research was supported under Contract NR 171–034, Group Psychology Branch, Office of Naval Research.

References

REFERENCES

[1]Birkhoff, G., Lattice theory, American Mathematical Society colloquium series, vol. 25, revised ed. (1948), xiv + 283 pp.Google Scholar
[2]Davidson, D., Suppes, P. and Siegel, S., Decision making: An experimental approach, Stanford, California (Stanford University Press), 1957, 121 pp.Google Scholar
[3]Hailperin, T., Remarks on identity and description in first-order axiom systems, this Journal, vol. 19 (1954), pp. 1420.Google Scholar
[4]Luce, R. D., Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination, Econometrica, vol. 24 (1956), pp. 178191.Google Scholar
[5]Sierpinski, W., Hypothèse du continu, Warsaw and Lwów 1934, v + 192 pp.Google Scholar
[6]Suppes, P. and Winet, M., An axiomatization of utility based on the notion of utility differences, Management science, vol. 1 (1955), pp. 259270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Tarski, A., Contributions to the theory of models, I, II, III, Indagationes mathematicae, vol. 16 (1954), pp. 572–581, 582588, and vol. 17 (1955), pp. 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Vaught, R., Remarks on universal classes of relational systems, Indagationes mathematicae, vol. 16 (1954), pp. 589591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar