5 ms·
> a consistent set of numbers has carried through the calculation, even if those numbers were wrong at the outset I kind of see how this might be useful, but w
by andrewflnr 1y ago
> a consistent set of numbers has carried through the calculation, even if those numbers were wrong at the outset
I kind of see how this might be useful, but what I've actually seen is an illusion of certainty from looking at numbers and thinking that means you're being quantitative instead of, you know, pulling things out of your butt. Garbage in, garbage out still applies.
- throwaway81523 1y agoYes, the potential illusion is most dangerous if you show someone else the numbers and they take them seriously. If they're only for your own calculations then you can remember what they are made of.
- plorkyeran 1y agoIn practice people seem to be very bad at remembering that. Pretty universally people act as though doing math on made up numbers makes them less erroneous rather than more.
- widforss 1y agoThat's the whole point of Fermi estimates. Find a plausible number given uncertain inputs.
- chrisweekly 1y agoYeah, mistaking precision for accuracy is a common fallacy.
- JadeNB 1y ago> Yeah, mistaking precision for accuracy is a common fallacy. I remember an appealing description of the difference being that a precise archer might sink all their arrows at the same spot on the edge of the target, whereas an accurate archer might sink all their arrows near the bull's eye without always hitting the same spot.
- mempko 1y agoYes, despite pulling the numbers out of your butt, having them and then seeing how accurate you are helps you calibrate your butt. That way over time, the numbers you pull out of your but become more accurate (and even possibly more precise)