|
Authored by: Doghouse on Thursday, May 30 2013 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
The usages tend to differ even in non-technical usage, though. To illustrate the
differences.
A common estimate for British casualties in the First World War is "around
10,000,000". Assuming that statement to contain no deliberate
disinformation:
If I say that casualties were about 10 million, that's accurate. But it's not
very precise - the true number may have been several hundred thousand more or
less.
If I say that casualties were 7,234,523, that is very precise. But it is not
remotely accurate.
I'd have to say that, in many contexts, accuracy without precision can often be
adequate and acceptable. Precision without accuracy most definitely is not.
(People pick up the meaning of language from many different sources, the
strongest one being contextual usage by other people. If the way you use the two
words doesn't share the distinction implied above, that's not wrong per se; you
simply have a different background to me. Just be aware that, to some people,
the two words mean subtly different things.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|