| Revision as of 02:20, 19 June 2007 editHubbardaie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users587 edits Far too narrow, and not quite on target← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:00, 24 December 2024 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers45,841 edits rv test edit | ||
| (232 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=Start|category=Math|core=yes|orphan=yes|VA=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|listas=Measurement|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Physics|importance=Top|attention=no|needs-infobox=no|needs-image=no}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid|attention=no|needs-infobox=no}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Statistics |importance=High }} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(31d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Measurement/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{British-English}} | |||
| == Proposed merge from ] == | |||
| ==Question== | |||
| {{Discussion top | status = Redirected | result = Redirected to ] ] ] 19:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC) }} | |||
| i have a project due i need to know info about a balance ] | |||
| :What information do you need? You may be better off asking at ]. There are a few article spread out on the topic. See ], ], and ] to start your search. - ] 18:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ] appears to merely be one archaic form of measurement, which would be best merged here. ] ] 03:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Why on earth does "Mensuration" redirect here? == | |||
| :As it is so archaic, and we have so little of a description of the method, I suggest that a merge to the author of the seminal text would be a better idea; so, merge to ]. ] (]) 21:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most of the text of ] is already present at ]. This is almost a redirect situation. ] | ] 03:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| == Quantum measurement == | |||
| Mensuration is a Renaissance concept of meter in music. The word doesn't even show up on this page. It shouldn't redirect here. Blargh. --] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I know that quantum measurement is contentious so I want to say a bit more about my edits of this section. | |||
| "Mensuration" also is an old word for "measurement", which is why it redirects here. ] 13:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I removed sentence: | |||
| == The good, the bad, and the ugly. == | |||
| ''Before a measurement is made, a quantum system is simultaneously described by all values in a range of possible values,'' | |||
| This is not correct as can be seen by reading the rest of the paragraph. Measuring a quantum state puts the system in a new state corresponding to the value measured. So obviously then it is obviously not in a state with "all values". | |||
| There are a number of good points to this article, but the first sentence is both needlessly complex and needlessly restrictive. I will attempt a rewrite. ] 13:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm all for simplifying things where possible, but there are a number of issues with the proposed changes. ''A measurement is the act of discovering ...''. A measurement is not an '''act''', it is the result of a pocess. Measurement is a process which extends from calibration to the act of obtaining particular measurements. ''There are four different levels of measurement'' -- this schema has been repeatedly criticized yet it is treated as though fact. ''The use of statistics to estimate the measurement of a property of a population from the measurement of that property in a sample is an important modern technique of measurement.'' This really doesn't make anything simpler too me -- and it is out of context. It is also very misleading. Perhaps you could provide some citations for changes and new points. ] 14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I replaced it with some content derived from and referenced to A. Messiah's book, that addresses the same concept in a more correct way. | |||
| :Let's see if we can come to an agreement. The version you restored preferences measurement in classical physics and engineering over all other sorts of measurement. Do we really want to do that? | |||
| I also moved the last sentence up and connected it to the one on "collapse". Penrose, cited in the article talks about both sentences so now the missing citation tag is not needed. ] (]) 15:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Measurement is both an act and the result of that act. "My measurement of the object resulted in a measurement of 3 meters." I have no problem, however, preferencing the result of the act rather than the act itself. I agree that that is more in accord with what follows. | |||
| ==Wiki Education assignment: 4A Misplaced Pages Assignment== | |||
| :"Measurement is a process...", however, returns to measurement as an act rather than measurement as a result. | |||
| {{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Riverside_City_College/4A_Wikipedia_Assignment_(Spring_2024) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2024-02-12 | end_date = 2024-06-14 }} | |||
| <span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :"Four different levels..." I have no idea what this is about. I just kept it from the earlier version of the article, and it is still there after your reversion. | |||
| :I am not sure what your problem is with statistics, but I'm happy to discuss it. | |||
| :Comments and suggestions? ] 14:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Do we want to preference measurement in physics over all other sorts? To answer this, firstly a bit of background to let you know where I'm coming from. The two of the predominant perspectives about measurement have been referred to as the ''classical theory'' and the ''representational theory''. The following is a brief characterization of these: | |||
| :Essentially, then, there are two features dividing the classical and representational theories of measurement: the role of ratios of quantities and the place of numbers. According to the classical theory, these two are logically connected: ratios of quantities are numbers, and this fact is the basis of measurement. According to the representational theory, numbers do not derive from ratios of quantities. They are quite independent of them and the place of numbers in measurement is determined by the structural similarity between qualitative and quantitative systems. Hence, according to the representational theory, numbers are assigned to empirical entities in measurement. According to the classical theory, numbers are discovered as relations between empirical entities in measurement. (Michell, 1993, p. 190). | |||
| The classical view is standard throughout the physical sciences because the very act of expressing the magnitude of a quantity as a number of uits implies it (e.g. Terrien, 1980). However, ] proposed a which has had a wide impcact in the social sciences even though it is at odds with the definition in the physical sciences (Michell, 1999, pp. 16-20). Stevens also proposed the so-called ]. | |||
| To answer your question, I'd rather give preference to measurement as it is understood throughout the natural sciences. Things like the index of consumer confidence and the Dow Jones industrial average are ''indices'', not measurements, as implied by their labels. So it depends what you mean by 'all other sorts of measurement'. Measurement is sometimes used loosely to refer to all sorts of things, but personally I would stick to its meaning in the natural sciences, with some recognition of other usage. I'm open to debate on this point of course. | |||
| On levels of measurement, the current wording has 'proposed', whereas you changed it to 'there are four different levels' (I understand why you did so but it gives the schema a more definitive status). Personally, I'd leave this out of a definition, so perhaps we could do this (others may disagree). | |||
| You changed opening sentence to: ''A measurement'' is the act of discovering the ratio of a magnitude to a given unit magnitude of the same type. Common usage is that ''a'' measurement is the result of measuring on a particular occasion. Measurement is the estimation of ratios, which is a process involving instrumentation, calibration, the act of using instruments to obtain measurements, and so on. | |||
| There is also an issue with referring to ''measurment'' as ''an act''. Doing so emphasizes one aspect of measurement as a whole: the act of using an instrument to obtain a particular measurement. Measurement, as understood in scientific literature, is far more than this. Again, maybe we need to differentiate between different uses of the term? | |||
| You added: ''The use of statistics to estimate the measurement of a property of a population from the measurement of that property in a sample is an important modern technique of measurement.'' I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you give an example? A lot of statistical methods require measurements as a starting point because arithemtic operations depend on having measurements (e.g. anything involing ANOVA). My doctoral (and current) research is in the area of probabilistic measurement. Even here, statistics is not used to ''estimate measurements'', so I am unsure what you mean. Statistics is used in the estimation of standard errors. Statistics like means are sometimes referred to as 'measures of central tendency', but they are not measurements per se; rather they characterize a property of a set of measurements. But I am not sure if this is what you mean? | |||
| References: | |||
| *Michell, J. (1993). The origins of the representational theory of measurement: Helmholtz, Hölder, and Russell. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 24, 185-206. | |||
| *Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | |||
| *Terrien, J. (1980). The practical importance of systems of units; their trend parallels progress in physics. In A.F. Milone & P. Giacomo (Eds.), Proceedings of the International School of Physics ‘Enrico Fermi’ Course LXVIII, Metrology and Fundamental Constants (pp. 765-9). Amsterdam: North-Holland. | |||
| Cheers. ] 04:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It sounds like you can make an interesting contribution to the article, rather than just revert to an earlier version that still contains things (such as "four kinds of measurement") that you object to. | |||
| :My objection to preferencing measurement in the natural sciences and physics in particular is that it ignores the use of measurement in construction work, engineering, and many other fields. The stuff about the Dow Jones was another attempt to make clear something in the earlier version that you reverted back to. | |||
| :As for statistics, since it is your area, why don't you write something about the use of statistics to obtain measurements, and the relative accuracy of statistics over direct measurement of every member in a population, in obtaining an average measurement for the population. ] 12:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yeah, you're right I sould try to improve the article. As you say, it has some good points but the opening is not great as is. Can you elaborate on what you mean about measurement in construction, engineering and so on? The way I'd go is to define and characterize measurement in general terms, and mention that measurement is fundamental to a wide and diverse range of fields and commercial applications. Thoughts? On Dow Jones etc., understood. On statistics, I should include something on maximum likelihood estimation in probabilistic measurement, true. Averages and so forth are best dealt with separately I think -- measurement is principally about individuals not populations (I assume you're referring to the use of Bayesian stats but this is really getting away from the fundamentals of measurement imv, better placed elswhere). I'll have a go when I get some time. In the mean time, if you want to make changes, go for it and I'll take a look when I can. Cheers Rick. ] 03:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I don't think the article needs to narrow down the many areas in which measurements are used. My objection was to giving precedence to, for example, science over engineering. I'm going to make a few changes, you make more when you have the time. ] 13:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry Rick, didn't see this entry. Have already made some changes. See what you think and I'll check out any more you make. Would appreciate feedback -- be honest, it needs to be accessible. ] 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It turns out we were editing at the same time. Your edit looks fine, but here is mine, just in case you want to use anything from it in your edit. | |||
| ::'''Measurement''' is the process of estimating the ] of a ] to a defined ] of the same type. It also refers to the result of that process. A measurement of the length of a plank results in a measurement of 9 meters. | |||
| ::While a measurement is usually given as a number followed by a unit, every measurement really has three parts, the estimate, an error bound, and a probability that the actual magnitude lies within the error bound of the estimate. For example, a measurement of a plank might result in a measurement of 9 meters plus or minus 0.01 meters, with a probability of 99%. | |||
| ::A measurement should be distinguished from a count. A measurement is a ], and is never exact. A count is a ] and may be exact. For example, a non-handicapped person has exactly ten fingers and thumbs on their two hands. | |||
| ::Statistics are often used to estimate counts and measurements, and if used carefully can result in greater accuracy than direct counts and measurements. | |||
| ::In scientific research, measurement is essential. One of the characteristics that distinguishes ] from ] is careful measurements that fall within predicted perameters. ] 13:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Have incorporated some of your edits. Much better overall now I think. ] 13:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Rick, glad you're still checking on this article. Do you think the structure is Okay? There are a couple of bits that are repetitive now, and I'm going to try to get to those. Yes, I thought about planets being contentious, but most people wouldn't think of that. However, I thought your example of ten digits in base 10 was really nice personally. ] 06:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == The neverending battle. == | |||
| Yes, this page is still on my watch list -- though I've cut about a third of the pages on my watchlist, just because time is finite. Misplaced Pages has many virtues, mainly because people love to write about subjects that interest them, but it also has a problem with repeated edits leaving articles choppy and repetitious. From time to time, somebody has to put in the hours to go over the article from beginning to end, fixing small problems. Then, about half the time, all that work gets reverted by somebody who objects to one small item on the list. ] 14:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Pre-metric measures == | |||
| ] recently added the following sentence to our history section: | |||
| :The standard roman measurement of wheat is a modius. | |||
| This didn't work in with the existing text at all, so I deleted it. But it does highlight our current History section's lack of coverage of early measurement systems. Surely these are worth a mention here. At present the main article referred to (]) almost seems to be about a completely different topic. -- ] 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposed WikiProject== | |||
| Right now the content related to the various articles relating to measurement seems to be rather indifferently handled. This is not good, because at least 45 or so are of a great deal of importance to Misplaced Pages, and are even regarded as ]. On that basis, I am proposing a new project at ] to work with these articles, and the others that relate to the concepts of measurement. Any and all input in the proposed project, including indications of willingness to contribute to its work, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your attention. ] 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Far too narrow, and not quite on target == | |||
| This definition unnecessarilly excludes lots of proper measurements. Since it looks at only "physical" phenomenon, it excludes valid measurements such as public polls, the Dow Jones, etc. It would also seem to exclude phenomenon that are forecasts. | |||
| There is no need to reinvent the entire field of measurement theory. Actually, yes, there is such a field and the article makes no mention of it. It does mention metrology, which is much, much narrower. Measurement theory defines measurement as a mapping of quantities against phenomenon states. It also treats measurement as an observation that reduces uncertainty about a quantity. All empirical methods are about uncertainty reduction. The concept of "assigning a value" seems to overlook the concept that real world measurements are really probability distributions of values, not single values. | |||
| This article also ignores another key component of measurement theory - that not all measurement scales are the set of real numbers. Stanely Stevens defined measurements that included nominal and ordinal sets of values. A nominal measurement is an observation that places a phenomenon within a set where the subsets have no implied order. For example, a medical test might give the result that you either have or do not have a particular condition. A test of a fetus might determine it is male or female and that would be a nominal measurement. An ordinal measurement would be something like Mohs hardness scale. An order is implicit but not relative magnatudes. On Mohs hardness scale, a 4 is harder than a 2, but not necessarilly "twice" as hard. | |||
| The best book on the topic is "How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business" IMHO. ] 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:00, 24 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Measurement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Proposed merge from Baculometry
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Redirected to Daniel Schwenter Joyous! Noise! 19:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Baculometry appears to merely be one archaic form of measurement, which would be best merged here. BD2412 T 03:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- As it is so archaic, and we have so little of a description of the method, I suggest that a merge to the author of the seminal text would be a better idea; so, merge to Daniel Schwenter. Klbrain (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Most of the text of Baculometry is already present at Daniel Schwenter. This is almost a redirect situation. Joyous! | Talk 03:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Quantum measurement
I know that quantum measurement is contentious so I want to say a bit more about my edits of this section.
I removed sentence: Before a measurement is made, a quantum system is simultaneously described by all values in a range of possible values,
This is not correct as can be seen by reading the rest of the paragraph. Measuring a quantum state puts the system in a new state corresponding to the value measured. So obviously then it is obviously not in a state with "all values".
I replaced it with some content derived from and referenced to A. Messiah's book, that addresses the same concept in a more correct way.
I also moved the last sentence up and connected it to the one on "collapse". Penrose, cited in the article talks about both sentences so now the missing citation tag is not needed. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: 4A Misplaced Pages Assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 February 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Not Fidel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Adolfo2213.
— Assignment last updated by Ahlluhn (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class level-3 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class physics articles
- Top-importance physics articles
- C-Class physics articles of Top-importance
- C-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- C-Class Statistics articles
- High-importance Statistics articles
- WikiProject Statistics articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English