There is no single ideal of exactness. Exactness is relative to your goal and to the kind of thing under consideration. That which is inexact in some sense is not necessarily unusable or not fit for purpose.
Is W. really right about this? That exactness is relative to a goal?
Certainly if I ask how far it is to New York then I don't want to know to the millimetre. But if you told me in that much detail, I might say you were being 'too exact'.
And generally, can't we say that a ruler which measures millimetres is more exact than one which only measures centimetres, or an atomic clock is more exact than a clock tower, without having some particular purpose in mind? And then just say that while one is more exact, we don't need such exactness for our current purpose?
Hmm - yeah. The degree of exactness necessary depends on your goal. I suppose one point is that we shouldn't go after some ideal of exactness because (i) there is no single ideal of exactness (that sounds right) and (ii) what's the point?
Is W. really right about this? That exactness is relative to a goal?
ReplyDeleteCertainly if I ask how far it is to New York then I don't want to know to the millimetre. But if you told me in that much detail, I might say you were being 'too exact'.
And generally, can't we say that a ruler which measures millimetres is more exact than one which only measures centimetres, or an atomic clock is more exact than a clock tower, without having some particular purpose in mind? And then just say that while one is more exact, we don't need such exactness for our current purpose?
Hmm - yeah. The degree of exactness necessary depends on your goal. I suppose one point is that we shouldn't go after some ideal of exactness because (i) there is no single ideal of exactness (that sounds right) and (ii) what's the point?
ReplyDelete