Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 02/25/05
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:45:59 -0500
Albert wrote:
> robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Albert wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, yes. 'Good approximations' have given us 3.57 uncracked eggs,
>>> partial pregnancies, 2.5 children, and modern economics.
>>
>>
>>
>> Those are -averages-, not approximations.
>
>
> I fail to see the difference.
Nevertheless, the difference is real, and has practical consequences (as
does the stupid use of averages, as you so kindly pointed out.)
All measurements are approximations, because all measurements are more
or less erroneous. Averages are calculated numbers, not a measured onea.
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|