Calibrating the theory of model mediated measurement: metrological extension, dimensional analysis, and high pressure physics

IF 1.5 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE European Journal for Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2024-08-10 DOI:10.1007/s13194-024-00600-w
Mahmoud Jalloh
{"title":"Calibrating the theory of model mediated measurement: metrological extension, dimensional analysis, and high pressure physics","authors":"Mahmoud Jalloh","doi":"10.1007/s13194-024-00600-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>I argue that dimensional analysis provides an answer to a skeptical challenge to the theory of model mediated measurement. The problem arises when considering the task of calibrating a novel measurement procedure, with greater range, to the results of a prior measurement procedure. The skeptical worry is that the agreement of the novel and prior measurement procedures in their shared range may only be apparent due to the emergence of systematic error in the exclusive range of the novel measurement procedure. Alternatively: what if the two measurement procedures are not in fact measuring the same quantity? The theory of model mediated measurement can only say that we <i>assume</i> that there is a common quantity. In contrast, I show that the satisfaction of dimensional homogeneity across the metrological extension is independent evidence for the so-called assumption. This is illustrated by the use of dimensional analysis in high pressure experiments. This results in an extension of the theory of model mediated measurement, in which a common quantity in metrological extension is no longer assumed, but hypothesized.</p>","PeriodicalId":48832,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00600-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I argue that dimensional analysis provides an answer to a skeptical challenge to the theory of model mediated measurement. The problem arises when considering the task of calibrating a novel measurement procedure, with greater range, to the results of a prior measurement procedure. The skeptical worry is that the agreement of the novel and prior measurement procedures in their shared range may only be apparent due to the emergence of systematic error in the exclusive range of the novel measurement procedure. Alternatively: what if the two measurement procedures are not in fact measuring the same quantity? The theory of model mediated measurement can only say that we assume that there is a common quantity. In contrast, I show that the satisfaction of dimensional homogeneity across the metrological extension is independent evidence for the so-called assumption. This is illustrated by the use of dimensional analysis in high pressure experiments. This results in an extension of the theory of model mediated measurement, in which a common quantity in metrological extension is no longer assumed, but hypothesized.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
校准以模型为中介的测量理论:计量学扩展、尺寸分析和高压物理学
我认为,维度分析为以模型为中介的测量理论所面临的怀疑挑战提供了答案。当考虑将范围更大的新测量程序与先前测量程序的结果进行校准时,问题就出现了。怀疑论者担心的是,新测量程序和先前测量程序在共同范围内的一致性可能只是由于在新测量程序的专属范围内出现了系统误差才显现出来的。另一种情况是:如果这两种测量程序实际上测量的不是同一个量呢?模型中介测量理论只能说,我们假设存在一个共同的量。与此相反,我的研究表明,满足整个计量扩展的维度同一性是所谓假设的独立证据。在高压实验中使用维度分析说明了这一点。这导致了模型中介测量理论的扩展,其中计量扩展中的共同量不再是假设,而是假定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
European Journal for Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The European Journal for Philosophy of Science publishes groundbreaking works that can deepen understanding of the concepts and methods of the sciences, as they explore increasingly many facets of the world we live in. It is of direct interest to philosophers of science coming from different perspectives, as well as scientists, citizens and policymakers. The journal is interested in articles from all traditions and all backgrounds, as long as they engage with the sciences in a constructive, and critical, way. The journal represents the various longstanding European philosophical traditions engaging with the sciences, but welcomes articles from every part of the world.
期刊最新文献
Questioning origins: the role of ethical and metaethical claims in the debate about the evolution of morality The extraterrestrial hypothesis: an epistemological case for removing the taboo Nagelian reduction and approximation The replication crisis is less of a “crisis” in Lakatos’ philosophy of science than it is in Popper’s Stopping rule and Bayesian confirmation theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1