Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:57:59 +0000
From: Paul Lulai <plulai@stanthony.k12.mn.us>
To: "Phys-L@Phys-L.org" <Phys-L@Phys-L.org>
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Sig Figs homework from my 7th grader
Message-ID:
<B1EC32D9C7E46A4BAAC8C22C74B019D56BB90351@EXCHANGE2.stanthony.k12.mn.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sig figs /must/ be used in a lot of college chem programs. I find many many chem teachers that feel sig figs are simply the way it is and how it is done.
I wonder if more undergrad physics classes use measurement uncertainty and error progression while more undergrad chem classes might rely on sig figs as a shortcut. It maybe that sig figs are a bad shortcut, but that might be the bulk of experience for someone with a BA or BS in chemistry.
If groups lobby textbooks and states to remove sig figs, that could be a reasonable push away from legend and towards science.