{"title":"数学化,而非测量:对史蒂文斯测量量表的批判","authors":"M. Thomas","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2412765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Stevens redefined measurement as “the assignment of numerals to objects and events according to a rule.” Using this definition, he defined four scales of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) and set out criteria for the appropriate statistical tests to be used with each. Stevens’ paper has been influential in statistics for the social sciences, but it is not grounded in either science or mathematics and confuses measurement with labeling and mathematization. Mathematization using set theory obviates the need for Stevens’ ad hoc framework.","PeriodicalId":90602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mathematization, Not Measurement: A Critique of Stevens’ Scales of Measurement\",\"authors\":\"M. Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2412765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Stevens redefined measurement as “the assignment of numerals to objects and events according to a rule.” Using this definition, he defined four scales of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) and set out criteria for the appropriate statistical tests to be used with each. Stevens’ paper has been influential in statistics for the social sciences, but it is not grounded in either science or mathematics and confuses measurement with labeling and mathematization. Mathematization using set theory obviates the need for Stevens’ ad hoc framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2412765\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2412765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Mathematization, Not Measurement: A Critique of Stevens’ Scales of Measurement
Stevens redefined measurement as “the assignment of numerals to objects and events according to a rule.” Using this definition, he defined four scales of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) and set out criteria for the appropriate statistical tests to be used with each. Stevens’ paper has been influential in statistics for the social sciences, but it is not grounded in either science or mathematics and confuses measurement with labeling and mathematization. Mathematization using set theory obviates the need for Stevens’ ad hoc framework.