{"title":"真值、误差和测量不确定度:两种观点","authors":"Jong Wha Lee, Euijin Hwang, Raghu N. Kacker","doi":"10.1007/s00769-022-01508-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Measurement uncertainty, as established in the <i>Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement</i> (GUM), is a central concept in metrology. The GUM is known for its detailed discussions on the concepts of true value and error and their relation to measurement uncertainty. However, the GUM statements on true value and error have been a source of conceptual controversies, sometimes leading to inconsistent or unclear descriptions on true value, error, and uncertainty. Here, we discuss that such controversies arise from an unclear distinction between two views of measurement with fundamentally different premises. In one of the views, called the realist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of estimating or determining the true value, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of reasonable estimates of true values. In the other view, called the instrumentalist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of assigning values to a measurand, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of values that could reasonably be assigned to a measurand. By examining the philosophy of measurement in each view, we show that a clear understanding of the two views is critical for understanding the GUM.\n</p></div>","PeriodicalId":454,"journal":{"name":"Accreditation and Quality Assurance","volume":"27 4","pages":"235 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00769-022-01508-9.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"True value, error, and measurement uncertainty: two views\",\"authors\":\"Jong Wha Lee, Euijin Hwang, Raghu N. Kacker\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00769-022-01508-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Measurement uncertainty, as established in the <i>Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement</i> (GUM), is a central concept in metrology. The GUM is known for its detailed discussions on the concepts of true value and error and their relation to measurement uncertainty. However, the GUM statements on true value and error have been a source of conceptual controversies, sometimes leading to inconsistent or unclear descriptions on true value, error, and uncertainty. Here, we discuss that such controversies arise from an unclear distinction between two views of measurement with fundamentally different premises. In one of the views, called the realist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of estimating or determining the true value, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of reasonable estimates of true values. In the other view, called the instrumentalist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of assigning values to a measurand, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of values that could reasonably be assigned to a measurand. By examining the philosophy of measurement in each view, we show that a clear understanding of the two views is critical for understanding the GUM.\\n</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accreditation and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\"27 4\",\"pages\":\"235 - 242\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00769-022-01508-9.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accreditation and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00769-022-01508-9\",\"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/s00769-022-01508-9","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}
True value, error, and measurement uncertainty: two views
Measurement uncertainty, as established in the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), is a central concept in metrology. The GUM is known for its detailed discussions on the concepts of true value and error and their relation to measurement uncertainty. However, the GUM statements on true value and error have been a source of conceptual controversies, sometimes leading to inconsistent or unclear descriptions on true value, error, and uncertainty. Here, we discuss that such controversies arise from an unclear distinction between two views of measurement with fundamentally different premises. In one of the views, called the realist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of estimating or determining the true value, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of reasonable estimates of true values. In the other view, called the instrumentalist view, measurement is regarded as an activity of assigning values to a measurand, in which case measurement uncertainty represents the dispersion of values that could reasonably be assigned to a measurand. By examining the philosophy of measurement in each view, we show that a clear understanding of the two views is critical for understanding the GUM.
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.