Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-f9nfp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T10:23:32.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Interpretation of the Representational Theory of Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Conrad Heilmann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the received view, the Representational Theory of Measurement reduces measurement to the numerical representation of empirical relations. This account of measurement has been widely criticized. In this article, I provide a new interpretation of the Representational Theory of Measurement that sidesteps these debates. I propose to view the Representational Theory of Measurement as a library of theorems that investigate the numerical representability of qualitative relations. Such theorems are useful tools for concept formation that, in turn, is one crucial aspect of measurement for a broad range of cases in linguistics, rational choice, metaphysics, and the social sciences.

Type
Models and Measurement
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 82 , Issue 5 , December 2015 , pp. 787 - 797
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Many thanks in particular to Eran Tal for many helpful comments, as well as to Constanze Binder, Marcel Boumans, Aki Lehtinen, Luca Mari, F. A. Muller, Julian Reiss, Jan-Willem Romeijn, and participants at the 2012 Arctic Workshop on Measurement in Rovaniemi, the 2013 OZSW Conference of the Dutch Research School of Philosophy in Rotterdam, and the 2014 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association in Chicago. Work on this article has been supported by a Marie Curie Career Integration grant 303900 from the European Union and a VENI grant 275-20-044 from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.

References

Adams, Ernest W. 1966. “On the Nature and Purpose of Measurement.” Synthese 16:125–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bale, Alan C. 2008. “A Universal Scale of Comparison.” Linguistics and Philosophy 31:1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boumans, Marcel, ed. 2007. Measurement in Economics: A Handbook. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boumans, Marcel, ed 2008. “Measurement.” In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, ed. Durlauf, Steven N. and Blume, Lawrence E.. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bradley, Richard. 2009a. “Becker’s Thesis and Three Models of Preference Change.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (2): 223–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Richard 2009b. “Preference Kinematics.” In Preference Change, ed. Grüne-Yanhoff, Till and Hansson, Sven O., 221–42. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy D. 2008. “In Praise of the Representation Theorem.” In Representation, Evidence, and Justification: Themes from Suppes, ed. Frauchiger, Michael and Essler, Wilhelm K., 83–90. Frankfurt: Ontos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy D., and Chang, Hasok. 2008. “Measurement.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, ed. Psillos, Stathis and Curd, Martin, 367–75. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald, McKinsey, John C. C., and Suppes, Patrick. 1955. “Outlines of a Formal Theory of Value.” Pt. 1. Philosophy of Science 22 (2): 140–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decoene, Stef, Onghena, Patrick, and Janssen, Rianne. 1995. “Representationalism under Attack: Review of an Introduction to the Logic of Psychological Measurement, by J. Michell and Philosophical and Foundational Issues in Measurement Theory, by C. Wade Savage and P. Ehrlich.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39 (2): 234–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, Franz, and List, Christian. 2009. “A Model of Non-informational Preference Change.” Choice Group Working Paper series 5(1), London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Fishburn, Peter C., and Rubinstein, Ariel. 1982. “Time Preference.” International Economic Review 23 (3): 677–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, Shane, Loewenstein, George, and O’Donoghue, Ted. 2002. “Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review.” Journal of Economic Literature 40 (2): 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilmann, Conrad. 2008. “Measurement-Theoretic Foundations of Time Discounting.” Choice Group Working Paper series 4(6), London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling C. 1960. “Stationary Ordinal Utility and Impatience.” Econometrica 28 (2): 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krantz, David H., Luce, R. Duncan, Tversky, Amos, and Suppes, Patrick. 1971. Foundations of Measurement. Vol. 1, Additive and Polynomial Representations. Mineola: Dover.Google Scholar
List, Christian, and Dietrich, Franz. 2013. “Where Do Preferences Come From?” International Journal of Game Theory 42 (3): 613–37.Google Scholar
Luce, R. Duncan, Krantz, David H., Tversky, Amos, and Suppes, Patrick. 1990. Foundations of Measurement. Vol. 3, Representation, Axiomatization, and Invariance. Mineola: Dover.Google Scholar
Michell, Joel. 1990. An Introduction to the Logic of Psychological Measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Michell, Joel 1995. “Further Thoughts on Realism, Representationalism, and the Foundations of Measurement Theory: Author’s Response to Review by Decoene et al. of An Introduction to the Logic of Psychological Measurement.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39 (2): 243–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Harold W. 1989. Personal Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ok, Efe A., and Masatlioglu, Yusufcan. 2007. “A Theory of (Relative) Discounting.” Journal of Economic Theory 137:214–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Eric. 2002. “Personal Identity.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, E.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank P. 1928. “A Mathematical Theory of Saving.” Economic Journal 38 (152): 543–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, Julian. 2008. Error in Economics: Towards a More Evidence-Based Methodology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul. 1937. “A Note on Measurement of Utility.” Review of Economic Studies 4:155–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul 1939. “The Rate of Interest under Ideal Conditions.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 53 (2): 286–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Stanley S. 1946. “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement.” Science 103 (2684): 677–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suppes, Patrick. 2002. Representation and Invariance of Scientific Structures. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick, Krantz, David H., Luce, R. Duncan, and Tversky, Amos. 1989. Foundations of Measurement. Vol. 2, Geometrical, Threshold, and Probabilistic Representations. Mineola: Dover.Google Scholar
Swistak, Piotr. 1990. “Paradigms of Measurement.” Theory and Decision 29 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tal, Eran. 2013. “Old and New Problems in Philosophy of Measurement.” Philosophy Compass 8 (12): 1159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, Robert. 2011. “Measurement and Interadjective Comparison.” Journal of Semantics 28:335–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar