Laura Cupples (Washington State University)
I examine the dynamics of measure development using two case studies: temperature, and quality of life. I argue, following Bas van Fraassen (2008) and Leah McClimans (2010) that in each case these dynamics have a hermeneutic structure. Just as the hermeneutic circle represents an attempt to overcome epistemic circularity in the interpretation of a text, so too must epistemic circularity be overcome in measure development. Namely, we must establish a mathematical relationship between observable (e.g. volume) and unobservable variables (e.g. temperature), while the value of the unobservable variable remains unknown.
I show that Gadamer’s (1991) philosophical hermeneutics are an effective lens through which to examine the development of the temperature standard as described by Hasok Chang (2004). First, the normative force of tradition found in Gadamer’s hermeneutics mirrors Chang’s “principle of respect”. Second, Gadamer argues that in order to interpret the meaning of a text, it must be applied in a concrete context. Similarly, in measurement we must bridge the gap between the abstract theory and concrete practice through the operationalization of the measure. Finally, Gadamer’s emphasis on coherence between part and whole is congenial to Chang’s justificatory philosophy of progressive coherentism.
Despite similar grounding in hermeneutics, I note an important difference between measure development for temperature and for quality of life. Namely, while the meaning of temperature can be standardized, the meaning of quality of life cannot (McClimans 2010). A strategy of progressive coherentism, i.e., Chang’s epistemic iteration (2004), ultimately leads to a theory of heat and temperature, as well as to determinate values for temperature. The same cannot be said for quality of life. Quality of life is imperfectly understood, according to McClimans (2010). Asking genuine questions about its meaning will aid in interpretation, but just as in Gadamer’s hermeneutics, our horizons of meaning must remain open. This is because there are always new questions we might ask about quality of life in various contexts.
The standardization of meaning for the temperature concept represents a limit to the analogy with hermeneutics, as Gadamer argues that the meaning of a text should remain open to new interpretations when encountered by new persons in new historical contexts. On the other hand, I argue that the indeterminacy we find in quality of life measurement is a result not only of an analogy with the hermeneutic task, but of full-fledged participation in it. Quality of life measures are texts authored by researchers and interpreted by respondents, each of whom brings his or her own experiential background to the encounter.
