Understanding Predication in Conceptual Spaces

We argue that a cognitive semantics has to take into account the possibly partial information that a cognitive agent has of the world. After discussing Gärdenfors's view of objects in conceptual spaces, we offer a number of viable treatments of partiality of information and we formalize them by means of alternative predicative logics. Our analysis shows that understanding the nature of simple predicative sentences is crucial for a cognitive semantics

Toward a formal theory of the measuring system

Measurement aims at obtaining a numerical description of objects/events/persons in real world by means of a measuring system. Measurement is widely used as a key way for obtaining high quality information from the real world. across disciplines. In the present day. there is growing consensus in holding that measurement is characterized by the use of something that qualifies as a "measuring system". Therefore. we discuss sufficient conditions for an empirical system to qualify as a measuring system

Dimensional analysis in relativity and in differential geometry

This note provides a short guide to dimensional analysis in Lorentzian and general relativity and in differential geometry. It tries to revive Dorgelo and Schouten's notion of 'intrinsic' or 'absolute' dimension of a tensorial quantity. The intrinsic dimension is independent of the dimensions of the coordinates and expresses the physical and operational meaning of a tensor. The dimensional analysis of several important tensors and tensor operations is summarized. In particular it is shown that the components of a tensor need not have all the same dimension, and that the Riemann (once contravariant and thrice covariant), Ricci (twice covariant), and Einstein (twice covariant) curvature tensors are dimensionless. The relation between dimension and operational meaning for the metric and stress-energy-momentum tensors is discussed; and the possible conventions for the dimensions of these two tensors and of Einstein's constant $\kappa$, including the curious possibility $\kappa = 8\pi G$ without $c$ factors, are reviewed.Comment: 37 pages. V2: corrected typos and added references. V3: corrected and extended discussions of the metric and stress-energy-momentum tensors, and of Einstein's constant; added reference

The Mysterious Appearance of Objects

Moving from some reflections on the empirical practice of measurement and on the nature of visual perception, we present a constructivist approach to objects. At the basis of such approach there is the idea that all we may know about what is out there is always mediated by some sort of apparatus, being it a measurement instrument or our perceptual system. Given this perspective, some questions are in order: how are objects identified and re-identified through time from the outcomes of apparatuses? How can we distinguish different (kinds of) objects? Our first goal will be to make explicit the mechanism used to build objects from the apparatuses\u27 outcomes, emphasizing what are the ontological and representational problems this construction faces. A second contribution will be a preliminary discussion of some possible ways to distinguish social objects, the constructed objects par excellence, from physical ones. A third contribution will be an attempt to make a bridge between two scientific communities that rarely seek contact or mutual recognition: that of formal ontologies and that of formal concept analysis

The Quantification of Intelligence in Nineteenth‑Century Craniology: An Epistemology of Measurement Perspective

Craniology – the practice of inferring intelligence differences from the measurementof human skulls – survived the dismissal of phrenology and remained a widely popularresearch program until the end of the nineteenth century. From the 1970s, historiansand sociologists of science extensively focused on the explicit and implicitsocio-cultural biases invalidating the evidence and claims that craniology produced.Building on this literature, I reassess the history of craniological practice from adifferent but complementary perspective that relies on recent developments in theepistemology of measurement. More precisely, I identify two aspects of the measurementculture of nineteenth-century craniologists that are crucial to understandthe lack of validity of craniological inference: their neglect of the problem of coordinationfor their presupposed quantification of intelligence and their narrow viewof calibration. Based on my analysis, I claim that these methodological shortcomingsamplified the impact of the socio-cultural biases of craniologists, which had apervasive role in their evidential use of measurement. Finally, my argument showshow the epistemology of measurement perspective can offer useful tools in debatesconcerning the use of biological evidence to foster social discourse and for analyzingthe relationship between theory, evidence, and measurement

The Complementarity of Psychometrics and the Representational Theory of Measurement

Psychometrics and the representational theory of measurement (RTM) are widely used in social scientific measurement. They are currently pursued largely in isolation from one another. I argue that despite their separation in practice, RTM and psychometrics are complementary approaches, because they can contribute in complementary ways to the establishment of what I argue is a crucial measurement property, namely, Representational Interpretability. Because RTM and psychometrics are complementary in the establishment of Representational Interpretability, the current separation of measurement approaches is unfounded

A structural model of direct measurement

In the last few decades foundations of measurement have developed so as to account for both the role of modeling in measurement, in particular relating to the presence and the effects of measurement uncertainty, and the fact that any measurement is performed by using instruments that work on the basis of transduction effects and provide justified results only in so far as they are properly calibrated. This has triggered a new interest about the role of instruments in the models of measurement. The structure of the process has been variously studied in reference to the connection between measured properties and indications provided by instruments, and to the way in which intersubjective information on the measurand is acquired through instrument calibration. From such a background this paper proposes a comprehensive structural model of direct measurement, whose functional elements, empirical and informational, are presented with a bottom-up strategy as a set of interrelated modules. The result, shown to be a generalization of some of the models currently available in the literature of measurement science, highlights the key role of scales for measurement, clarifies the conceptual and operative relations between direct measurement and calibration, and identifies the principal sources of measurement uncertainty in the structural context of the process. This model is intended to interpret both physical and nonphysical measurements, and as such it is a component of a ‘‘measurement across the sciences” research programme

Measuring the social world. Studies in the epistemology of measurement in the social and behavioural sciences.

This dissertation addresses the challenges that arise when measuring phenomena in the social and behavioural sciences. The studies in this dissertation argue that there is continuity in the notion of measurement accuracy across the natural, social, and behavioural sciences because measurement assessment practice, and the notion of accuracy it relies upon, exhibits important similarities across disciplines. As with physical measurement, social and behavioural scientists assess the reliability of measurement by looking at the robustness of the outcomes across multiple measurements of the same parameter. Consistency across different measurements is taken as a sign that the outcomes can be attributed to what is measured. Scientists can improve this consistency by detecting and correcting for errors. In this assessment practice, the accuracy of measurement is the degree of agreement among multiple measurements of the same parameter. However, due to the nature of the phenomena being studied, social and behavioural measurement involves a greater degree of approximation and requires more flexibility in the measurement procedures and assessment methods. Many of the phenomena studied in the social and behavioural sciences are multifaceted and/or loosely defined and therefore some measurement procedures cannot be modelled to the same level of detail as the measurement of well-defined physical quantities. As a result, the measurement of these phenomena necessarily involves greater degrees of approximation. Social and behavioural phenomena, moreover, often change over time and have different characteristics across contexts, and as such might require partially distinct kinds of measurement. Additionally, unlike in the physical sciences, social and behavioural phenomena are often morally laden and as a consequence their measurement requires making value judgments, which are highly sensitive to the context of application. Therefore it is not obvious that a standardised definition of these complex and changing phenomena is the best epistemic strategy to pursue. When measuring these phenomena, scientists face a trade-off between the need to standardise measurement practice in order to improve comparability and facilitate the accumulation of knowledge, and the demand to tailor the definition to the specific contexts being studied. In my view, context-dependency and approximation do not lead to pessimistic conclusions about the reliability of measurement in these fields, but should rather be seen as guiding measurement practice and the employment of its outcomes. For instance, to deal with context-dependency, scientists can adopt strategies that trace regularities in context-dependence and improve the comparability across context- dependent measurements. When the measurement is influenced by the purpose and context of application, what counts as good measurement is also sensitive to purpose and context, and therefore can admit different degrees of approximation. The studies in this dissertation suggest ways to improve how scientists deal with these challenges and warn against ways of using the outcomes that can raise conceptual or epistemological doubts.Tässä väitöskirjassa käsitellään mittaamiseen haasteita yhteiskunta- ja käyttäytymistieteissä. Osoitan, että mittausten arviointikäytännöt ja niissä käytetyt tarkkuuden käsitteet ovat tärkeillä tavoilla samanlaisia eri tieteenaloilla. Samoin kuin fysikaalisessa mittaamisessa, yhteiskunta- ja käyttäytymistieteilijät arvioivat mittauksen luotettavuutta vertaamalla toisiinsa useita saman parametrin mittauksia. Yhdenmukaisuus eri mittausten välillä on merkki siitä, että tuloksia voidaan pitää mitattavan ominaisuuksina. Tutkijat voivat edelleen kohentaa tätä yhdenmukaisuutta havaitsemalla ja korjaamalla mittausten virheitä. Tässä arviointikäytännössä mittauksen tarkkuus on useiden saman parametrin mittausten yhteensopivuuden aste. Tutkittavien ilmiöiden luonteesta kuitenkin johtuu, että yhteiskunta- ja käyttäytymistieteellisessä mittauksessa likimääräisyyden aste on suurempi ja että ne vaativat enemmän joustavuutta mittaus- ja arviointimenetelmissä. Monet yhteiskunta- ja käyttäytymistieteissä tutkituista ilmiöistä ovat monitahoisia ja/tai löyhästi määriteltyjä, minkä vuoksi joitain mittausmenetelmiä ei voida mallintaa yhtä yksityiskohtaisesti kuin hyvin määriteltyjen fysikaalisten suureiden mittauksessa. Tämän vuoksi näiden ilmiöiden mittaamiseen liittyy väistämättä suurempaa likimääräisyyttä. Lisäksi yhteiskunnalliset ja käyttäytymiseen liittyvät ilmiöt muuttuvat usein ajan myötä ja niillä on erilaisia piirteitä eri konteksteissa, ja siksi ne saattavat vaatia osittain erilaisia mittauksen tapoja. Mielestäni kontekstiriippuvuus ja likimääräisyys eivät johda pessimistisiin johtopäätöksiin mittauksen luotettavuudesta näillä aloilla, vaan ne tulisi pikemmin nähdä ohjaavina tekijöinä mittauskäytännöille ja niiden tulosten hyödyntämiselle. Tutkijoille on tarjolla strategioita, joilla voidaan parantaa kontekstiriippuvaisten mittausten vertailtavuutta. Lisäksi erilliset käyttötarkoitukset ja -kontekstit voivat sallia erilaisia likiarvoisuuden asteita. Tämän väitöskirjan tutkimukset ehdottavat keinoja, joilla tutkijat voivat paremmin käsitellä näitä haasteita, ja varoittavat käsitteellisiä tai tiedollisia epäilyksiä synnyttävistä tavoista käyttää tutkimustuloksia