{"title":"悖论？什么悖论？","authors":"R. Willink","doi":"10.1007/s00769-024-01577-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article is a response to the preceding paper by Huang, who considers a recent result of Willink (Measurement: Sensors, 24:100416, 2022) and who describes the result as a paradox. The result implied that a set of information or a “state of knowledge” about a measurand cannot be identified with a unique probability distribution for the measurand, contrary to what seems suggested in the literature surrounding the revision of the <i>Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement</i>. The result is restated and viewed in the context of CIPM Recommendation INC-1, which was foundational in the original development of the <i>Guide</i>. It is argued that the result is a proof, not a paradox, and that it will only appear paradoxical to those who have adopted an incorrect premise about probability. The idea of having “information” about the true value of a measurand is discussed and contrasted with the idea of having “belief” about it. The material supports the view that the analysis of measurement uncertainty is to be based on classical statistical principles.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":454,"journal":{"name":"Accreditation and Quality Assurance","volume":"29 3","pages":"189 - 192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00769-024-01577-y.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Paradox? What paradox?\",\"authors\":\"R. Willink\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00769-024-01577-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This article is a response to the preceding paper by Huang, who considers a recent result of Willink (Measurement: Sensors, 24:100416, 2022) and who describes the result as a paradox. The result implied that a set of information or a “state of knowledge” about a measurand cannot be identified with a unique probability distribution for the measurand, contrary to what seems suggested in the literature surrounding the revision of the <i>Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement</i>. The result is restated and viewed in the context of CIPM Recommendation INC-1, which was foundational in the original development of the <i>Guide</i>. It is argued that the result is a proof, not a paradox, and that it will only appear paradoxical to those who have adopted an incorrect premise about probability. The idea of having “information” about the true value of a measurand is discussed and contrasted with the idea of having “belief” about it. The material supports the view that the analysis of measurement uncertainty is to be based on classical statistical principles.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accreditation and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\"29 3\",\"pages\":\"189 - 192\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00769-024-01577-y.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accreditation and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00769-024-01577-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accreditation and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00769-024-01577-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
This article is a response to the preceding paper by Huang, who considers a recent result of Willink (Measurement: Sensors, 24:100416, 2022) and who describes the result as a paradox. The result implied that a set of information or a “state of knowledge” about a measurand cannot be identified with a unique probability distribution for the measurand, contrary to what seems suggested in the literature surrounding the revision of the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. The result is restated and viewed in the context of CIPM Recommendation INC-1, which was foundational in the original development of the Guide. It is argued that the result is a proof, not a paradox, and that it will only appear paradoxical to those who have adopted an incorrect premise about probability. The idea of having “information” about the true value of a measurand is discussed and contrasted with the idea of having “belief” about it. The material supports the view that the analysis of measurement uncertainty is to be based on classical statistical principles.
期刊介绍：
Accreditation and Quality Assurance has established itself as the leading information and discussion forum for all aspects relevant to quality, transparency and reliability of measurement results in chemical and biological sciences. The journal serves the information needs of researchers, practitioners and decision makers dealing with quality assurance and quality management, including the development and application of metrological principles and concepts such as traceability or measurement uncertainty in the following fields: environment, nutrition, consumer protection, geology, metallurgy, pharmacy, forensics, clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, and microbiology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
