No measurement is perfect. If your statistics are well executed, the measurement is a valid contribution to human knowledge.
Also every measurement is of great impact as long as nobody else can measure more precisely. So just wait 😉
welp
Submitted 3 weeks ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/d0ce2aca-b9fd-4dde-9f6d-3af5c893d65c.png
Comments
FreeBeard@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Neverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Hey, if we play this right, we can get a constant named after us!
Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Constant-ly gets it wrong. I can already see it 🤩
InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Knowing what not to do is just as important right?
Kraven_the_Hunter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
One more method checked off the list!
stevedice@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Back in my early years of uni, we had one of those tests in which every question depends on the previous answer and we had to round every answer to two significant figures. For some stupid reason, a friend and I decided to also use the rounded figure when inputting the values into the next question instead of working algebraically. By the last question, we were off by like 5.
Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The main difference between Science and fucking around is that Science has you write things down. So long as you record everything you did, even if it ended up with wildly unexpected results, it’s valid.
tdawg@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“Clearly the model is wrong”
TigerAce@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
My lab partner and I *
hypnicjerk@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“me discussing with my lab partner” vs “i discussing with my lab partner”
Ceedoestrees@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They’re physickers not languagers.
tetris11@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
As long as your errors are evenly distributed you should keep making observations until you get an error of -347% in the other direction, thus cancelling out your previous error and allowing you to model your entire existence with Riemann curves