Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
A university math professor that was very
involved in data work taught me about
the meaning of numbers. He was
pioneer in the application of computers.Basically he said an answer cannot
be more accurate than the number you start
with.Three times two gives six. Not 6.0.
Six means closer to six than seven or five.In this day of computers we see many digits
listed.. Many of them have no meaning.Another item he was gung ho about was
extrapolation. It may lead to very false results.When we write 18.0 we imply a under 1%
number. In areas like biology this is very
hard to achieve.YOu can display many number in this digital
age. Is the display true.The medical profession is very prone to
use numbers that exceed the ability to
be measured.Another area is understanding the instruments
In the 60's I was invited to check on a system
that was recording the loads that a test subject
was encountering in a test of couches during
a drop test. This was for the space program.I found the system had been set up incorrectly
and the subject was being hit by "G's" about
three times the readout indication.. There is
a significant difference between 20 G's and
60 G's. Things like this are too common
in our clinical medicine.We need to be careful with "digits"
Some are pure fiction.
Guy.
Evon said:Amen, Guy. I have a lot of respect for researchers. BUT, if the parameters
of the project are wrong, interpreted wrong, or the observer just doesn't
know every thing about the data she/he is studying then erroneous results
happen. Sometimes it takes generation to correct. Remember when a bumble bee
couldn't fly? It wasn't designed properly in aerodynamic terms!?!
Tell all of this to a Usenet full of ppl who think they can read, validate
and utilize research.
Without any of the qualifications to do so.