Re: what good is "percentage error"?

[Doug Craigen <dcc@cyberspc.mb.ca>]

On Wed, 14 May 1997, Donald E. Simanek wrote:

> On Wed, 14 May 1997, Rauber, Joel              Phys wrote:
>
> > It appears that we are talking apples and oranges here.  My point has
> > been that we cannot replace proper accuracy estimates (a more positive
> > term than "error analysis")
>
> "Accuracy estimation" is a good and descriptive term, though not supported
> in the literature. Have you ever seen a book titled "Accuracy Estimation"? 

Perhaps I should have used some form of winkie or other 
     *  
<;-/-|--< since I was only half serious about the term.  I don't believe I
     *
have ever used that term in class (though I admit I used it in at least
one other post recently), but I wouldn't swear to it. Its just that all
the discussion about "error" vs "uncertainty" seemed to require a bit of
levity.  I was trained to use the term "error analysis", but it seems to
generate some confusion, even offense, with the students. Perhaps I'll try
out "uncertainty analysis" the next time I get the opportunity to teach a
lab.