Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Accuracy of data.
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 1 of 2 (394793)
04-13-2007 9:01 AM


I was thinking about a persons use of evidence and how it comes about:
Some evidence appears to me to be directly from an occuring phenomena insofar as it comes direct to the senses - such as temperature. From here a person can draw a conclusion about the temperature.
That is not to say to measure the temperature precisely but to measure its effect on the person in question.
It's too hot, just right, cool, etc. But what we don't get is precise interval data; for this we use measuring machines. The best we can get with our senses is a catagorical interpretation of the data.
When we read the readouts on such measuring machines we recieve more accurate information.
We do this evey time we want to accurately assess occuring phenomena.
I would like to propose that for the above reasons any conclusions made by humans that does not include some form of metric in fundementally flawed by our ability to measure data accurately.
To do it accurately we need measuring devices or techniques.
Therefore, anything that cannot be measured to such a degree of accuracy cannot be used as evidence for the actuallity of a phemnona.
Is it Science, please.

AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 2 (394795)
04-13-2007 9:08 AM


Thread copied to the Accuracy of data. thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024