From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Well known scientifc facts
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:12:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.145058.3190@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <13044@ntdd-1>, meier@Software.Mitel.COM (Rolf Meier) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep28.222319.13990@ims.com> chapman@ims.com (Dave Chapman) writes:
>|> 
>|> >The measurement of normal body temperature was off by about 0.5%.
>|> 
>|> 
>|> What do you mean by 0.5%?
>|> 
>|> 0.5% of 100?
>|> 
>|> 0.5% of 37?
>|> 
>|> 0.5% of 310?
>|> 
>|> You have to be very careful when you talk about % of a temperature.
>|> Have you ever heard a radio announcer say "The high today will be
>|> 30, only half as warm as yesterday, when it was 60".  What is he
>|> talking about?  If the temperature were 0, is there no warmth?  If 
>|> the temperature is -10, how much warmth is there?
>|> 
>|> _____________________________________________________________________
>|> Rolf Meier					Mitel Corporation
>
>So what is the "right" thing to say?  I made a careless comment like this
>too.  It's fine for you to say "be careful" but you weren't kind enough
>to actually give away a good answer.  That said, I will now partly 
>correct a previous remark and take a stand on the issue.  
>
>So far, I have seen two ways I like of experessing the amount of
>"error" here:
>
>  1.  based on the absolute temperature, which is what is being measured
>  in principle.  In this case, the correction is tiny, as < 1 degree out
>  of 300 is pretty small.
>
>  2.  based on the measured or estimated range of possible human temperatures.
>  In this case, the correction is a bit larger, as human temps can't vary
>  more than some 10 or so degrees without drastic consequences.  Still,
>  this gives a change of 10% or less, which is not exactly gigantic.
>
>I think the first measure emphasizes the difference from the point of view 
>of the method of measurement, and the second indicates the difference from
>the point of view of its interpretation.
>
>Of course, the "if this holy number was wrong then your whole religion
>called science is wrong" folks couldn't care less about such issues.
>For them I simply say:  the previous estimate was very close, and
>so the new study actually largely CONFIRMS the previous study, showing
>that "the religion called science" is more valid than ever.
>
>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu


If it confirms the study, then how come the author of the study
was so perplexed that they could have been wrong for so long and
with such a vast number of measurements?  That is the question
that I originally asked which was mirrored by the same question
from the author.  It was not meant as a "proof" that science can't
give you any knowledge, which some people are interpreting it as,
but rather as an examination of the potential limitations of
scientific knowledge.  If you want to ignore that anomoly, then
close your eyes and keep on going, but it is something that I care
to think about...

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic