« Complain Bitterly but Please Don't Threaten
Main
Friday Pot Blogging »
September 08, 2006
The Wrong Conclusion with 8 Significant Figures of Precision
Scientific American is one of the few magazines that I read cover to cover. However, I don't necessarily read it from the front cover to the back cover. It is usually near the end of the month long life of any edition that I read the letters to the editor. This September edition is no exception; so it wasn't until last night that I read a letter from David Siemens, Jr. on a piece in a previous volume that recounted the history of the slide rule. Here is part of what Siemens said,
The slipstick's solutions of three places with rounding errors could not stand against calculators' eight-place displays, let alone 12-place readouts of 13-place computations. Indeed, current scientific calculators are more precise than the available data. [emphasis added]
We often confuse precision with accuracy. If you're not sure of the difference checkout this link. If the data only supports three places of precision than no greater degree of precision in calculation will improve it.
I was reminded of a remark made by a brilliant marketing strategist with whom I was privileged to work. After reviewing a marketing presentation this strategist said, "I think you have reached the wrong conclusion with 8 significant figures of precision."
I worry that we tend to make the same mistake in fields that are less driven by mathematics than science or even marketing. I see a rough analogy between the number of significant figures in a calculation and the intensity with which certain points of view are expressed. And I am concerned that in much of our dialog the level of our expression indicates far more precision than is supportable from the available data. It is for this reason that I do not like the tone of many of the current debates in Syro-Palestinian or, if you prefer, Biblical archaeology. The data very often does not support the certainty expressed by the various proponents of this position or that. It certainly doesn't support name calling.
The same can be said about theological discussion. How is it possible to hold such strong opinions with no evidence to support them? I worry that the intensity of the debate is often inversely proportional to the strength of the evidence. And for this reason, there is a tendency to reach the wrong conclusion with great precision.
Posted by DuaneSmith at September 8, 2006 09:48 AM | Read more on Odds and Ends |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.telecomtally.com/cgi-bin/blog/mt-tb.cgi/830
Comments
Thanks for the good reminder. You are absolutely correct, and it's easy to slip into excessive expression.
Posted by: Henry Neufeld at September 8, 2006 11:14 AM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.