What do people mean by “measurable definition?”
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
What is the definition of "measurable definition?" What does that mean? I have interns who are victims of verbose, academic language, and they frequently use terms that I don't think they even understand.
In an online pdf titled "A Measurable Definition of Resiliency Using 'Mission Risk' as a Metric" I read this in the abstract, "Part of the problem...lacks
a clear definition that supports measurable metrics that would allow two like systems to be compared against each other."
It seems there is no such thing as a "measurable definition," rather there is a phenomenon that can be defined and measured.
meaning word-choice
asked Mar 27 at 16:43
Ryan Stephenson
113
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
What is the definition of "measurable definition?" What does that mean? I have interns who are victims of verbose, academic language, and they frequently use terms that I don't think they even understand.
In an online pdf titled "A Measurable Definition of Resiliency Using 'Mission Risk' as a Metric" I read this in the abstract, "Part of the problem...lacks
a clear definition that supports measurable metrics that would allow two like systems to be compared against each other."
It seems there is no such thing as a "measurable definition," rather there is a phenomenon that can be defined and measured.
meaning word-choice
asked Mar 27 at 16:43
Ryan Stephenson
113
1
The word measureable in this context indicates a quantified or quantifiable metric of some kind but that metric should be specified to operationalize the definition. In the absence of that metric, the phrase is specious jargon.
– DJohnson
Mar 27 at 18:09
1
I think @DJohnson nails it with the word "quantifiable" . The issue is, as you(OP) point out than very frequently when the issue is raised, the nature of what is to be measured does not easily make itself directly quantifiable. Prior to the last few financial bubbles "beta" was chosen as a stand in for 'risk' .. 'beta' was the degree of fluctuation of prices ... however it ended up being a terrible measure of worst case scenarios and 'solvency'. A better heuristic like "premium over replacement cost" or "% above a 5 year moving average' would have been better 'measurable definitions'
– Tom22
Mar 28 at 1:50
@tom22 All good points especially your observation that everything is not measurable since there are those that believe otherwise. I'm just not sure the OP is talking about financial risk or is referring to something more general. Mission risk implies a large set of risk metrics, e.g., the metrics used wrt the Challenger space shuttle disaster. In that case the risk of failure of the 'O-rings' when the outdoor temperature dropped below a threshold was known and had been quantified but was ignored since the other metrics were saying 'go.'
– DJohnson
Mar 28 at 12:44
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
What is the definition of "measurable definition?" What does that mean? I have interns who are victims of verbose, academic language, and they frequently use terms that I don't think they even understand.
In an online pdf titled "A Measurable Definition of Resiliency Using 'Mission Risk' as a Metric" I read this in the abstract, "Part of the problem...lacks
a clear definition that supports measurable metrics that would allow two like systems to be compared against each other."
It seems there is no such thing as a "measurable definition," rather there is a phenomenon that can be defined and measured.
meaning word-choice
asked Mar 27 at 16:43
Ryan Stephenson
113
What is the definition of "measurable definition?" What does that mean? I have interns who are victims of verbose, academic language, and they frequently use terms that I don't think they even understand.
In an online pdf titled "A Measurable Definition of Resiliency Using 'Mission Risk' as a Metric" I read this in the abstract, "Part of the problem...lacks
a clear definition that supports measurable metrics that would allow two like systems to be compared against each other."
It seems there is no such thing as a "measurable definition," rather there is a phenomenon that can be defined and measured.
meaning word-choice
meaning word-choice
asked Mar 27 at 16:43
Ryan Stephenson
113
asked Mar 27 at 16:43
Ryan Stephenson
113
edited Mar 27 at 17:09
asked Mar 27 at 16:43
Ryan Stephenson
113
asked Mar 27 at 16:43
Ryan Stephenson
113
asked Mar 27 at 16:43
Ryan Stephenson
113
113
1
The word measureable in this context indicates a quantified or quantifiable metric of some kind but that metric should be specified to operationalize the definition. In the absence of that metric, the phrase is specious jargon.
– DJohnson
Mar 27 at 18:09
1
I think @DJohnson nails it with the word "quantifiable" . The issue is, as you(OP) point out than very frequently when the issue is raised, the nature of what is to be measured does not easily make itself directly quantifiable. Prior to the last few financial bubbles "beta" was chosen as a stand in for 'risk' .. 'beta' was the degree of fluctuation of prices ... however it ended up being a terrible measure of worst case scenarios and 'solvency'. A better heuristic like "premium over replacement cost" or "% above a 5 year moving average' would have been better 'measurable definitions'
– Tom22
Mar 28 at 1:50
@tom22 All good points especially your observation that everything is not measurable since there are those that believe otherwise. I'm just not sure the OP is talking about financial risk or is referring to something more general. Mission risk implies a large set of risk metrics, e.g., the metrics used wrt the Challenger space shuttle disaster. In that case the risk of failure of the 'O-rings' when the outdoor temperature dropped below a threshold was known and had been quantified but was ignored since the other metrics were saying 'go.'
– DJohnson
Mar 28 at 12:44
add a comment |
1
The word measureable in this context indicates a quantified or quantifiable metric of some kind but that metric should be specified to operationalize the definition. In the absence of that metric, the phrase is specious jargon.
– DJohnson
Mar 27 at 18:09
1
I think @DJohnson nails it with the word "quantifiable" . The issue is, as you(OP) point out than very frequently when the issue is raised, the nature of what is to be measured does not easily make itself directly quantifiable. Prior to the last few financial bubbles "beta" was chosen as a stand in for 'risk' .. 'beta' was the degree of fluctuation of prices ... however it ended up being a terrible measure of worst case scenarios and 'solvency'. A better heuristic like "premium over replacement cost" or "% above a 5 year moving average' would have been better 'measurable definitions'
– Tom22
Mar 28 at 1:50
@tom22 All good points especially your observation that everything is not measurable since there are those that believe otherwise. I'm just not sure the OP is talking about financial risk or is referring to something more general. Mission risk implies a large set of risk metrics, e.g., the metrics used wrt the Challenger space shuttle disaster. In that case the risk of failure of the 'O-rings' when the outdoor temperature dropped below a threshold was known and had been quantified but was ignored since the other metrics were saying 'go.'
– DJohnson
Mar 28 at 12:44
1
1
The word measureable in this context indicates a quantified or quantifiable metric of some kind but that metric should be specified to operationalize the definition. In the absence of that metric, the phrase is specious jargon.
– DJohnson
Mar 27 at 18:09
The word measureable in this context indicates a quantified or quantifiable metric of some kind but that metric should be specified to operationalize the definition. In the absence of that metric, the phrase is specious jargon.
– DJohnson
Mar 27 at 18:09
1
1
I think @DJohnson nails it with the word "quantifiable" . The issue is, as you(OP) point out than very frequently when the issue is raised, the nature of what is to be measured does not easily make itself directly quantifiable. Prior to the last few financial bubbles "beta" was chosen as a stand in for 'risk' .. 'beta' was the degree of fluctuation of prices ... however it ended up being a terrible measure of worst case scenarios and 'solvency'. A better heuristic like "premium over replacement cost" or "% above a 5 year moving average' would have been better 'measurable definitions'
– Tom22
Mar 28 at 1:50
I think @DJohnson nails it with the word "quantifiable" . The issue is, as you(OP) point out than very frequently when the issue is raised, the nature of what is to be measured does not easily make itself directly quantifiable. Prior to the last few financial bubbles "beta" was chosen as a stand in for 'risk' .. 'beta' was the degree of fluctuation of prices ... however it ended up being a terrible measure of worst case scenarios and 'solvency'. A better heuristic like "premium over replacement cost" or "% above a 5 year moving average' would have been better 'measurable definitions'
– Tom22
Mar 28 at 1:50
@tom22 All good points especially your observation that everything is not measurable since there are those that believe otherwise. I'm just not sure the OP is talking about financial risk or is referring to something more general. Mission risk implies a large set of risk metrics, e.g., the metrics used wrt the Challenger space shuttle disaster. In that case the risk of failure of the 'O-rings' when the outdoor temperature dropped below a threshold was known and had been quantified but was ignored since the other metrics were saying 'go.'
– DJohnson
Mar 28 at 12:44
@tom22 All good points especially your observation that everything is not measurable since there are those that believe otherwise. I'm just not sure the OP is talking about financial risk or is referring to something more general. Mission risk implies a large set of risk metrics, e.g., the metrics used wrt the Challenger space shuttle disaster. In that case the risk of failure of the 'O-rings' when the outdoor temperature dropped below a threshold was known and had been quantified but was ignored since the other metrics were saying 'go.'
– DJohnson
Mar 28 at 12:44
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
It is indeed true that a definition itself cannot be measurable (or fail to be measurable, either). What those who use the phrase have in mind would probably be better expressed by 'definition in terms of something measurable'.
answered Mar 28 at 3:34
jsw29
1,205318
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Acknowledging your assessment of self-inflating intern verbosity--of which your ignoring of same is part and parcel to transforming their minds into physician minds--the .pdf offering to which you refer seems exemplary of a reasoning fallacy of stating a premise so as to anticipate an outcome--similar in everyday parlance to begging the question. If a "definition" is what it is by virtue solely of being so defined, and since a measure (as defined) and a metric (as defined) are synonymous, then your conclusion, as by implication, is indeed not nonsensical but instead is precisely perceptive. A definition cannot be measured that is, of itself, already measured, and innately so.
answered Mar 27 at 20:40
Steven P Makes it very easy rl
284
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
It is indeed true that a definition itself cannot be measurable (or fail to be measurable, either). What those who use the phrase have in mind would probably be better expressed by 'definition in terms of something measurable'.
answered Mar 28 at 3:34
jsw29
1,205318
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
It is indeed true that a definition itself cannot be measurable (or fail to be measurable, either). What those who use the phrase have in mind would probably be better expressed by 'definition in terms of something measurable'.
answered Mar 28 at 3:34
jsw29
1,205318
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
It is indeed true that a definition itself cannot be measurable (or fail to be measurable, either). What those who use the phrase have in mind would probably be better expressed by 'definition in terms of something measurable'.
answered Mar 28 at 3:34
jsw29
1,205318
It is indeed true that a definition itself cannot be measurable (or fail to be measurable, either). What those who use the phrase have in mind would probably be better expressed by 'definition in terms of something measurable'.
answered Mar 28 at 3:34
jsw29
1,205318
answered Mar 28 at 3:34
jsw29
1,205318
answered Mar 28 at 3:34
jsw29
1,205318
answered Mar 28 at 3:34
jsw29
1,205318
1,205318
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Acknowledging your assessment of self-inflating intern verbosity--of which your ignoring of same is part and parcel to transforming their minds into physician minds--the .pdf offering to which you refer seems exemplary of a reasoning fallacy of stating a premise so as to anticipate an outcome--similar in everyday parlance to begging the question. If a "definition" is what it is by virtue solely of being so defined, and since a measure (as defined) and a metric (as defined) are synonymous, then your conclusion, as by implication, is indeed not nonsensical but instead is precisely perceptive. A definition cannot be measured that is, of itself, already measured, and innately so.
answered Mar 27 at 20:40
Steven P Makes it very easy rl
284
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
Acknowledging your assessment of self-inflating intern verbosity--of which your ignoring of same is part and parcel to transforming their minds into physician minds--the .pdf offering to which you refer seems exemplary of a reasoning fallacy of stating a premise so as to anticipate an outcome--similar in everyday parlance to begging the question. If a "definition" is what it is by virtue solely of being so defined, and since a measure (as defined) and a metric (as defined) are synonymous, then your conclusion, as by implication, is indeed not nonsensical but instead is precisely perceptive. A definition cannot be measured that is, of itself, already measured, and innately so.
answered Mar 27 at 20:40
Steven P Makes it very easy rl
284
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Acknowledging your assessment of self-inflating intern verbosity--of which your ignoring of same is part and parcel to transforming their minds into physician minds--the .pdf offering to which you refer seems exemplary of a reasoning fallacy of stating a premise so as to anticipate an outcome--similar in everyday parlance to begging the question. If a "definition" is what it is by virtue solely of being so defined, and since a measure (as defined) and a metric (as defined) are synonymous, then your conclusion, as by implication, is indeed not nonsensical but instead is precisely perceptive. A definition cannot be measured that is, of itself, already measured, and innately so.
answered Mar 27 at 20:40
Steven P Makes it very easy rl
284
Acknowledging your assessment of self-inflating intern verbosity--of which your ignoring of same is part and parcel to transforming their minds into physician minds--the .pdf offering to which you refer seems exemplary of a reasoning fallacy of stating a premise so as to anticipate an outcome--similar in everyday parlance to begging the question. If a "definition" is what it is by virtue solely of being so defined, and since a measure (as defined) and a metric (as defined) are synonymous, then your conclusion, as by implication, is indeed not nonsensical but instead is precisely perceptive. A definition cannot be measured that is, of itself, already measured, and innately so.
answered Mar 27 at 20:40
Steven P Makes it very easy rl
284
answered Mar 27 at 20:40
Steven P Makes it very easy rl
284
answered Mar 27 at 20:40
Steven P Makes it very easy rl
284
answered Mar 27 at 20:40
Steven P Makes it very easy rl
284
284
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f438640%2fwhat-do-people-mean-by-measurable-definition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
The word measureable in this context indicates a quantified or quantifiable metric of some kind but that metric should be specified to operationalize the definition. In the absence of that metric, the phrase is specious jargon.
– DJohnson
Mar 27 at 18:09
1
I think @DJohnson nails it with the word "quantifiable" . The issue is, as you(OP) point out than very frequently when the issue is raised, the nature of what is to be measured does not easily make itself directly quantifiable. Prior to the last few financial bubbles "beta" was chosen as a stand in for 'risk' .. 'beta' was the degree of fluctuation of prices ... however it ended up being a terrible measure of worst case scenarios and 'solvency'. A better heuristic like "premium over replacement cost" or "% above a 5 year moving average' would have been better 'measurable definitions'
– Tom22
Mar 28 at 1:50
@tom22 All good points especially your observation that everything is not measurable since there are those that believe otherwise. I'm just not sure the OP is talking about financial risk or is referring to something more general. Mission risk implies a large set of risk metrics, e.g., the metrics used wrt the Challenger space shuttle disaster. In that case the risk of failure of the 'O-rings' when the outdoor temperature dropped below a threshold was known and had been quantified but was ignored since the other metrics were saying 'go.'
– DJohnson
Mar 28 at 12:44