4 ms·

It's "a truth", which is probably as good as you can get, given that "the truth" is always a subjective thing. The benefit to algorithm isn't that it's infalli

by basseq 9y ago

It's "a truth", which is probably as good as you can get, given that "the truth" is always a subjective thing. The benefit to algorithm isn't that it's infallible (it may well be), but rather than it's consistent. It's accurate, even if not correct. Considering how much of human judgement is inconsistent, there's value in quantifying it in a standard way. Reasonable minds can argue about whether than quantification is correct or fair.

gowld 9y ago
Why is accurate (by which you mean 'consistent') better than correct?
- a_t48 9y ago
  Isn't accuracy an aspect of correctness? Ie: can you be correct without being accuracy?
- da_chicken 9y ago
  Primarily because "correctness" is likely to be subjective or difficult to define, while "accuracy" is not. That said, the terms more often used here are "precise, but not accurate" (http://blog.minitab.com/blog/real-world-quality-improvement/accuracy-vs-precision-whats-the-difference http://blog.minitab.com/blog/real-world-quality-improvement/...) but note that this uses a different meaning for accuracy than parent used. For example, say you use 22/7 to derive the value of pi. You can easily calculate it to 60 or more decimal places. You'll be very precise. However, you won't be accurate because your methodology of using 22/7 is flawed. It's also very easy to create more precision: just keep calculating. On the other hand, it can be very difficult to create more accuracy: How do we even measure pi to be able to confirm the ratio is correct?
- basseq 9y ago
  It's not. But many "legacy" systems—using the term broadly to mean people and process—are inconsistent and not any more correct as a whole. A standardized system is easier to monitor and easier to correct, so I see this as an improvement overall for that reason.
jpk 9y ago
I think my point is less concerned with a value judgement about algorithms, and more concerned with prompting critical thinking about how and who develops the algorithms, to what ends, the vectors by which subjectivity seeps into them, and how that affects their behaviors.

by basseq 9y ago

gowld 9y ago

Why is accurate (by which you mean 'consistent') better than correct?

a_t48 9y ago
Isn't accuracy an aspect of correctness? Ie: can you be correct without being accuracy?
da_chicken 9y ago
Primarily because "correctness" is likely to be subjective or difficult to define, while "accuracy" is not. That said, the terms more often used here are "precise, but not accurate" (http://blog.minitab.com/blog/real-world-quality-improvement/accuracy-vs-precision-whats-the-difference http://blog.minitab.com/blog/real-world-quality-improvement/...) but note that this uses a different meaning for accuracy than parent used. For example, say you use 22/7 to derive the value of pi. You can easily calculate it to 60 or more decimal places. You'll be very precise. However, you won't be accurate because your methodology of using 22/7 is flawed. It's also very easy to create more precision: just keep calculating. On the other hand, it can be very difficult to create more accuracy: How do we even measure pi to be able to confirm the ratio is correct?
basseq 9y ago
It's not. But many "legacy" systems—using the term broadly to mean people and process—are inconsistent and not any more correct as a whole. A standardized system is easier to monitor and easier to correct, so I see this as an improvement overall for that reason.

jpk 9y ago

I think my point is less concerned with a value judgement about algorithms, and more concerned with prompting critical thinking about how and who develops the algorithms, to what ends, the vectors by which subjectivity seeps into them, and how that affects their behaviors.