“All models are false, but some are useful.”— British statistician George E. P. Box
.
Many standard physical measurements such as height and volume are human conceptions. There are nearing infinite ways to measure water and land objects. None are intrinsically better or lesser than the other possible measurements. Picking the ‘best’ measuring method for water is like picking the most accurate identity in a cloud— you might see a castle in the cloud, while your friend might see a princess.
For easy understanding and practical convenience, humans chose volume as the key measure of water, height as a key measure of trees, and weight as a key measure of rocks. Most lay humans and even scientists see volume as something intrinsic to liquid, but it’s just an idiosyncratic human conception. Volume as a measurement has more to do with the human brain than it has to do with water, orange juice or milk.
Humans have developed a great bias towards their pet measuring methods, treating them as the gold standard. There is nothing wrong with having convenient measuring methods, but the gold standard status sometimes leads to interesting results.
Take mountains for example. The number one way to measure a mountain is its height. The Guinness Book of World Records doesn’t have entries for the heaviest mountain or the bluest or the smoothest. They list the tallest and the highest. No one cares which mountain is the bluest.
It should be of no surprise that special attention is given to Mt. Everest, the tallest and highest mountain. Amongst the general public, the apex of mountain climbing is scaling Mt. Everest. Most just assume it’s the most difficult to scale. However, expert climbers will tell you that K2 is significantly more difficult to climb due to the angles and remoteness. However, K2 doesn’t have the formidable reputation with the public as it’s only the second tallest mountain.
.
Notice how the mainstream press measures motion pictures. They rank them by their box-office sales, something that has little to do with art. They measure art as business transactions.
What is humorous about box office receipts as a measurement of art is that the viewers purchase the ticket before they see the movie. Many people buy a ticket, then hate the movie.
Of course, CNN and NBC use box office receipts as measurements because they are convenient and tangible. They have a financial division that knows how to deal with financial statements. Objectively measuring and ranking by artistic merit would be great, but no one knows how to do that.
.
Assorted interesting measuring tidbits:
* You likely find it easier to judge the length of a pole if it is vertical or horizontal than at an unorthodox angle. If the pole is at a 73-degree angle, you might tilt your head to judge its length.
* There are problems in communication between folks who measure in Celsius versus Fahrenheit, yards versus millimeters. An American may find it impossible to conceptualize temperatures quoted in degree Celsius.
* Scientists have yet to find the perfect way to represent light. In some ways, light is like a wave, but in others, it is like particles. These conceptions conflict, and both are wrong.
* Meteorologists added wind chill factor and humidity to their descriptive repertoire because they found temperature alone was unable to accurately describe conditions.
* Measuring can change the thing being measured. Methods of measuring running computer programs can slow or otherwise alter the program. In nuclear physics, measuring the location and speed of an atomic particle is impossible, because measuring the location changes the particle’s speed. Runners run a shorter mile since the Olympics switched to metric.
* Measurements are never exact. There always is a margin of error.
* We can order and categorize information for our purposes, but not beyond that. We don’t know how things are ordered or if they are ordered beyond our human minds.
* There have long been philosophical arguments about the nature of time. Isaac Newton said time was an intrinsic physical thing on the order of height or weight, while Gottfried Leibniz said time, at least as we conceive it, is just a human construct to describe what we observe. Einstein’s centuries-later Theory of Relativity showed that time doesn’t always act as absolutely as Newton thought.
.
Related posts: