![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No. Bridgman's philosophy separate from an operational definition which has a broader use. -- Thomasmeeks 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The idea is older than Bridgman. One can find it implicit in the writings of William James, and back to the utilitarians, and even to Francis Bacon, with a little stretch. The unconfirmed rumor is that the term was in use among Bridgman's circle of acquaintances before he published. However, we don't need to argue precedence here. It is an analytic approach to discussion of the subject that is broader than Bridgman. That should be sufficient to use the term in the broader sense than he used it. -- Jon Roland 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree with the merger on the basis that there can be two different definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.66.110 ( talk) 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. Operationalization is a process, not necessarily ending with a closed definition, [User:SarahPhilipson] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPhilipson ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. The scientific use predates the business concept, the latter of which should have its own page titled Operationalization (business) Fergdoug ( talk) 12:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Who's the Chris cited at the end of the third paragraph?
It's painful for a physicist to realize that what she always thought was one concept is, in fact, two or more distinct concepts
Gratuitous use of the female pronoun is just as annoying as gratuitous use of the male.
How about "It's painful for a physicist to realize that what appears to be a single concept is, in fact, two or more distinct concepts"?
I'd change it myself except that all my edits seem to be undone these days. 84.9.82.184 10:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The pronoun 'one' can be resurrected, with a little modification here: '... what one always thought was a single concept is, in fact, two or more ... .' Geologist ( talk) 01:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Should be more about the 1950's social-science meaning of "operationalism", which claimed that unless you could lay out a series of steps by which something could be concretely measured, then it simply didn't exist scientifically. Operationalism was related to the concepts of behaviorism and logical positivism which prevailed at that time. Also, the view was sometimes held that it wasn't really adequate just to show that a theory was consistent with observations -- it was also desirable or necessary to show a series of steps by which the theory could be directly derived from the observations (this was part of the meaning of "biuniqueness" in linguistics). AnonMoos ( talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The article says, "Previously, no one had paid any attention to the different operations used because they always produced the same results," referring to Einstein and inertial versus gravitational mass. I don't think this is right. Loránd Eötvös surely understood the distinction before Einstein was born.-- 75.83.69.196 ( talk) 03:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't find a reference that "operationalization" is used in 'modern' science. All references are to the humanities apart from an essay written in 1927. We need to define the topic in the first paragraph, not give some historical usage Bhny ( talk) 17:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "The concept of operationalization was first presented by the British physicist N. R. Campbell in his 'Physics: The Elements' (Cambridge, 1920).". I checked the book here: https://archive.org/details/physicstheelemen029733mbp/page/n7, but could not find any mentioning of the word "operationalization" nor find any version of "operational*" (like operationalized, operationalize, etc). The reference thus needs to be deleted or updated. Netzwerkerin ( talk) 12:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering [ [2]] doesn't mention operationalization at all Bhny ( talk) 21:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
How is this operationalization? Is there a source that says that operationalization is used to indicate black holes? A quote would be good. Bhny ( talk) 00:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I checked all four references. None mention operational or operationalization.
Bhny ( talk) 20:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Operationalization is the process of defining a theoretical concept, which can be fuzzy, to make it clearly distinguishable or measurable, and to understand it in terms of empirical observations.
Perhaps more clear explanations upfront, for the sake of a smoother incision?
Recreational Stuff (*cough* thought-provoking)
If this page was majorly prepared by philosophers, is there a point in writing fifty billion pages if less than half will make sense? My old man used to say that a philosopher should always have a statistician handy, although I always vote yes for maths, EECS, and astro/aeo.
78.162.27.28 ( talk) 04:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the section that talks of operationalization in general relativity should first mention the operationalization that led to special relativity, particularly as that seems to be the earliest use (1905) of operationalization. Einstein's insight that led to special relativity was that "distance", "time", and "simultaneity" were not defined unambiguously, and that they needed to be defined in terms of measurements that were theoretically possible in any frame of reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philgoetz ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought the following text was very strange:
"Another example is the radius of a sphere, obtaining different values depending on the way it is measured (say, in metres and in millimeters)."
Operationalization is not about units.
It turns out this was from a change in 2011!
I would just change it back, but I don't now if the previous version is a lot better, talking about the radius of an electron.
Anyone got any ideas?
Yaris678 ( talk) 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No. Bridgman's philosophy separate from an operational definition which has a broader use. -- Thomasmeeks 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The idea is older than Bridgman. One can find it implicit in the writings of William James, and back to the utilitarians, and even to Francis Bacon, with a little stretch. The unconfirmed rumor is that the term was in use among Bridgman's circle of acquaintances before he published. However, we don't need to argue precedence here. It is an analytic approach to discussion of the subject that is broader than Bridgman. That should be sufficient to use the term in the broader sense than he used it. -- Jon Roland 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree with the merger on the basis that there can be two different definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.66.110 ( talk) 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. Operationalization is a process, not necessarily ending with a closed definition, [User:SarahPhilipson] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPhilipson ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. The scientific use predates the business concept, the latter of which should have its own page titled Operationalization (business) Fergdoug ( talk) 12:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Who's the Chris cited at the end of the third paragraph?
It's painful for a physicist to realize that what she always thought was one concept is, in fact, two or more distinct concepts
Gratuitous use of the female pronoun is just as annoying as gratuitous use of the male.
How about "It's painful for a physicist to realize that what appears to be a single concept is, in fact, two or more distinct concepts"?
I'd change it myself except that all my edits seem to be undone these days. 84.9.82.184 10:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The pronoun 'one' can be resurrected, with a little modification here: '... what one always thought was a single concept is, in fact, two or more ... .' Geologist ( talk) 01:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Should be more about the 1950's social-science meaning of "operationalism", which claimed that unless you could lay out a series of steps by which something could be concretely measured, then it simply didn't exist scientifically. Operationalism was related to the concepts of behaviorism and logical positivism which prevailed at that time. Also, the view was sometimes held that it wasn't really adequate just to show that a theory was consistent with observations -- it was also desirable or necessary to show a series of steps by which the theory could be directly derived from the observations (this was part of the meaning of "biuniqueness" in linguistics). AnonMoos ( talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The article says, "Previously, no one had paid any attention to the different operations used because they always produced the same results," referring to Einstein and inertial versus gravitational mass. I don't think this is right. Loránd Eötvös surely understood the distinction before Einstein was born.-- 75.83.69.196 ( talk) 03:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't find a reference that "operationalization" is used in 'modern' science. All references are to the humanities apart from an essay written in 1927. We need to define the topic in the first paragraph, not give some historical usage Bhny ( talk) 17:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "The concept of operationalization was first presented by the British physicist N. R. Campbell in his 'Physics: The Elements' (Cambridge, 1920).". I checked the book here: https://archive.org/details/physicstheelemen029733mbp/page/n7, but could not find any mentioning of the word "operationalization" nor find any version of "operational*" (like operationalized, operationalize, etc). The reference thus needs to be deleted or updated. Netzwerkerin ( talk) 12:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering [ [2]] doesn't mention operationalization at all Bhny ( talk) 21:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
How is this operationalization? Is there a source that says that operationalization is used to indicate black holes? A quote would be good. Bhny ( talk) 00:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I checked all four references. None mention operational or operationalization.
Bhny ( talk) 20:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Operationalization is the process of defining a theoretical concept, which can be fuzzy, to make it clearly distinguishable or measurable, and to understand it in terms of empirical observations.
Perhaps more clear explanations upfront, for the sake of a smoother incision?
Recreational Stuff (*cough* thought-provoking)
If this page was majorly prepared by philosophers, is there a point in writing fifty billion pages if less than half will make sense? My old man used to say that a philosopher should always have a statistician handy, although I always vote yes for maths, EECS, and astro/aeo.
78.162.27.28 ( talk) 04:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the section that talks of operationalization in general relativity should first mention the operationalization that led to special relativity, particularly as that seems to be the earliest use (1905) of operationalization. Einstein's insight that led to special relativity was that "distance", "time", and "simultaneity" were not defined unambiguously, and that they needed to be defined in terms of measurements that were theoretically possible in any frame of reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philgoetz ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought the following text was very strange:
"Another example is the radius of a sphere, obtaining different values depending on the way it is measured (say, in metres and in millimeters)."
Operationalization is not about units.
It turns out this was from a change in 2011!
I would just change it back, but I don't now if the previous version is a lot better, talking about the radius of an electron.
Anyone got any ideas?
Yaris678 ( talk) 19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)