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]

Re: [Phys-l] Writing a review or lab report



_____

From: Bernard Cleyet [mailto:bernardcleyet@redshift.com]
To: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu]
Sent: Mon, 02 May 2011 18:29:04 -0400
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Writing a review or lab report


On 2011, May 02, , at 08:53, Dr. Richard Tarara wrote:

> You can test units,
> calculations, sig-figs

I thought sig-figs were verboten?

At the risk of starting this discussion again, I don't feel like I've seen a definitive statement about whether there's a consensus among practicing scientists on the use of sig figs. I'm trying to lead the charge to get rid of them in the department (to scaffold towards explicit uncertainty reporting in the highest-level courses, but not including sig figs anywhere), but I feel like I need some more backup here, especially since one of my colleagues says that he uses them in chemistry publications. He was a chemist in industry, and I haven't worked in industry, but my sense is that physics publications all involve explicit uncertainty calculation. Is it just that 'descriptive' chem (say, isolating the chemical that makes that newly found flower smell like that) doesn't really need so much specificity numerically, or do the chem folks really think that's a good way to declare the uncertainty?

For the good of the list, can we confine this tangent to the question "what journals/fields require sig figs (or explicit uncertainty"?

Thanks for the help!
jg





--
Joshua Gates
Physics Faculty
Tatnall School (Wilmington DE)
JHU Center for Talented Youth