Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T02:30:02.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory of the Apparatus and Theory of the Phenomena: The Case of Low Dose Electron Microscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Zeno G. Swijtink
Zeno G. Swijtink*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Electron microscopy, and in particular low dose electron microscopy, offers interesting cases of experimental techniques where the theory of the phenomena studied and the theory of the apparatus used, are intertwined. A single primary exposure usually does not give an interpretable image, and computerized image enhancement techniques are used to create from multiple exposures a single, visually meaningful image. Some of the enhancement programs start from informed guesses at the structure of the specimen and use the primary exposures in a series of corrections to arrive at a image that can be read by trained observers.

In this paper I describe in the general deterministic case the possible relations between phenomena theory and instrument theory. I give a Bayesian criterion for when an experiment is a test of the theory of the apparatus, rather than a test of the theory of the phenomena, and describe strategies used to ensure that tests of the theory of the phenomena are possible.

Type
Part X. Experiment
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 573 - 584
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, P.H. (1986), ‘Instrumentation and Computers’, American Scientist 74: 182–192.Google Scholar
Ackermann, R.J. (1985), Data, Instruments, and Theory. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babbage, C. (1830), Reflections on the Decline of Science in England. Fellowes.Google Scholar
Dorling, J. (1979), “Bayesian Personalism, the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, and Duhem’s Problem”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10: 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, L. (1977), “Instrument Science. Introductory Article”. Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments 10: 566–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, A. and Howson, C. (1988), “It Probably is a Valid Experimental Result: A Bayesian Approach to the Epistemology of Experiment” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 19: 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, R.M. (1975), “Radiation Damage and Biological Electron Microscopy”, in Physical Aspects of Electron Microscopy and Microbeam Analysis, Siegel, B.M. and Beaman, D.R. (eds.). New York: Wiley, pp. 205–229.Google Scholar
Lindley, D.V. (1956), “On a Measure of the Information Provided by an Experiment” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 27: 986–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, G. (1981), ‘Constructive Probability’, Synthese 48: 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer, G. and Tversky, A. (1985), ‘Languages and Designs for Probability Judgment’ Cognitive Science 9: 309–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slump, C.H. (1984), On the Statistical Analysis of Images in Low-Dose Electron Microscopy. Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swijtink, Z.G. (1987), ‘The Objectification of Observation: Measurement and Statistical Methods in the Nineteenth Century’, in The Probabilistic Revolution. Volume 1: Ideas in History, Krüger, Lorenz, Daston, Lorraine J., and Heidelberger, Michael(eds.). Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press, pp. 260–285.Google Scholar