Comments on: Science: The Art of the Appropriate Approximation

By: jfb2252

jfb2252 — Sun, 27 May 2012 14:17:34 +0000

Unless you are calculating the _hypothesis_? of a triangle with side of 3 and 4 units,

By: Xezlec

Xezlec — Sun, 27 May 2012 14:12:41 +0000

I tend to agree with Jacques Futrelle, but with the understanding that he is talking about a specific aspect of science. I don’t think he means to say that scientists do not use approximations when performing calculations, only that one must use rigor and make one’s meaning absolutely clear when reasoning. When he says that a mistake causes the structure to topple, I think he’s exactly right, once you consider that he means a mistake in the reasoning by which an idea is derived. He is trying to explain to a layman why it is that scientists are so cautious about checking and verifying things, and why they resort to extremes of cold logic when determining what they can say is “true”, even in ways that may seem absurdly pedantic to an outsider (i.e. 5 sigmas for “discovery”, everything has to be reproduced multiple times to be believed, Monte Carlo methods aren’t considered good enough to say anything “definitive”, etc.). When I look at the way science is done in the real world, I see exactly what he is describing: just look at how that loose cable toppled the entire OPERA result.

By: Md Santo

Md Santo — Sun, 27 May 2012 11:49:44 +0000

Approximation bridging science with knowledge :

Approximation bridging probability – based (science) with possibility – based (knowledgeable science), whereas science currently shifted to the right, from probability – based toward possibility – based domain. The border between science and pseudo science seems becoming blurred (follow the link http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com/forum/topics/important-considerations-why-the-limit-of-science-should-shifted- “Important considerations why the limit of Science should shifted to the right”). Have a look at the Attachment

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sun, 27 May 2012 10:40:18 +0000

Hi,
There is a difference between approximation and tolerance and I think you mixed between the two.
The distance between two cities is 100 miles is a good approximation because the size of each is about 10 miles , and I need it to calculate the ETA assuming I drive up to 60 miles /hour( sometimes 20 following a large truck).
In engineering , be it electronics or carpentry we use the term tolerance which is based on the working tools for measurement, the tools for processing and the actualo needs.
That’s why you will see on a design that a piece of wood is 5 inch +/- 1/10 or on a resistor that is 5 ohm +/- .1%.
The smallest the tolerance, the higher the price of the product (more expensive tools required).
Mathematics ( including geometry) are exact branches as long as you do not involve “practice”. Pi is Pi for any math problem . When you need actual calculations you need 3.14159…. depending on the tolerance you allow for the result in your practical provlem.

By: Uncle Al

Uncle Al — Sat, 26 May 2012 16:52:29 +0000

Approximation is lethal in positive feedback. Economics, meteorology, psychology, climatology… will never globally work. Beware a few small men altering what many clever men provide into sparse nonsense administrators can broadly inflict.

Approximation requires corrections be applied at local small scale. After failure is planted, it is watered by approximations. When something fails, change it. Space-X slew NASA by lacking Divine Right management. Physics’ triumphs are discovered not perturbated. Newton was changed not patched.

By: Mike Will

Mike Will — Sat, 26 May 2012 13:18:45 +0000

An enjoyable read, as always.

This principle may extend beyond scientific inquiry to nature. In DNA replication, very slightly less than perfect precision does not halt the process, and evolution results. The scientist is tasked with determining ‘appropriate’ in theory and practice, natural selection decides it elsewhere.

By: Geoffrey Cadman

Geoffrey Cadman — Sat, 26 May 2012 07:19:51 +0000

An enjoyable read which leads me to ask why in geometry, that is plane old fashioned Euclidian geometry, straight edge and compass, is it not allowed to take a chord or an arc with a second compass and transport this dimension?

If the physical world twists and pulls and stretches surely the rules of geometry should also be more flexible.