The appeal to robustness in measurement practice

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Science
• Measurement Theory
• Epistemology

Background:

• Measurement robustness is frequently used to corroborate individual results.
• Existing arguments, like the no-coincidence argument, face specific objections.
• The precise meaning of reliability in measurement assessment practice requires clarification.

Purpose of the Study:

• To distinguish between different arguments based on measurement robustness.
• To defend the epistemic value of robustness for assessing measurement reliability.
• To elucidate the concept of reliability as it emerges from measurement assessment practices.

Main Methods:

• Distinguishing between two distinct inferential patterns of measurement robustness arguments.
• Analyzing the objections typically raised against robustness-based corroboration.
• Examining the characteristics of robustness arguments across diverse scientific disciplines.

Main Results:

• Measurement robustness arguments employ a distinct inferential pattern compared to no-coincidence arguments.
• The robustness argument for measurement assessment is not susceptible to the same objections as other uses of robustness.
• Measurement reliability exhibits continuity across the physical, social, and behavioral sciences.

Conclusions:

• Robustness provides a valuable epistemic basis for assessing measurement reliability.
• The specific inferential structure of robustness arguments offers a unique way to support measurement claims.
• A unified understanding of measurement reliability is applicable across various scientific fields.