Why should we bother measuring something if we already know what it is?

In a
teaching laboratory, it would be a way for the teacher to check if a student has
learned
the skills pertinent to the course (as illustrated in the preceding example). In
general, the
reason is to check if the instrument or method that we would be using for subseq
uent
measurements is reliable. Checking if an instrument is giving correct values and
adjusting
it so that it gives correct values, or figuring out how to calculate the correct
values, is
called calibration or standardization. We do this using standard reference mater
ials and/
or standard operating procedures. For something to be considered a standard its va
lidity
should ultimately be traceable to an authorized agency; in the United States, th
is agency
is the NIST (National Institutes of Standards and Technology, www.nist.gov). In
cases
where a standard is not defined, the correct value is assumed to be one that is pr
edicted
by a well-established theory (the theoretical value), or one previously reported
in a peerreviewed
publication (the literature value).
We can tell there is a problem with the accuracy of a measurement if we repeat i
t
several times and find that the errors are one-sided (that is, consistently positi
ve or
consistently negative). This type of error is called a systematic or determinate
error and is
avoidable. It could, for example, be due to an improper calibration of the instr
ument; to
avoid it, we re-calibrate. It could be due to a shortcoming of the method used;
to avoid it,
we modify the method.