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.










share|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community yesterday


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.











  • 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

















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.










share|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community yesterday


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.











  • 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













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.










share|improve this question















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 27 at 17:09

























asked Mar 27 at 16:43









Ryan Stephenson

113




113





bumped to the homepage by Community yesterday


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.







bumped to the homepage by Community yesterday


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.










  • 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




    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










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'.






share|improve this answer




























    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.






    share|improve this answer





















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "97"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      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

























      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'.






      share|improve this answer

























        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'.






        share|improve this answer























          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'.






          share|improve this answer












          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'.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 28 at 3:34









          jsw29

          1,195318




          1,195318
























              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.






              share|improve this answer

























                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.






                share|improve this answer























                  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.






                  share|improve this answer












                  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.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 27 at 20:40









                  Steven P Makes it very easy rl

                  284




                  284






























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded



















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      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





















































                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      數位音樂下載

                      When can things happen in Etherscan, such as the picture below?

                      格利澤436b