That is a very important observation. It says volumes about the the nature of God vs. the nature of Man. The mere fact that we are able to theorize about perfection, despite our inability to achieve it, is amazing to me.
The word "round", in the way I used it has a certain range. It is an imprecise term that can be an accurate description of some kinds of objects, if indeed those objects are round.
This is a circular statement; unfortunately, it just begs the question.
Let's use something even closer to an actual sphere, a ball bearing manufactured in space. To the human eye it looks like a sphere. To human hands, using any standard measuring tools we have, it seems to be a sphere.
These tools themselves have a degree of imprecision in their measurements. So we only know that this ball bearing approximates a sphere to within the tolerance of the measuring tools (in fact, the boundaries of this tolerance themselves are somewhat ambiguous).
All types of measurements come with a standard deviation, which will be described by a range. Precision is determined by the stringency of that standard, while accuracy is a relational term, like thin or round.
Not only are we using the word "precision" differently, but it also seems we're using the word "accuracy" differently. For an example of how I use the words in an empirical sense, see post 91.
Something could be described accurately without precision, but you wouldn't be able to determine how accurate that description is without something to compare it to. The more precise the thing it's being compared to is, the more you're able to determine accuracy.
That's why I'm saying that accuracy is meaningless without precision.
The term that I used in my first response in this particular tangent of this thread (slide fit) is also an expression of a range.
OK, let's go back to your slide fit:
A slide fit allows for movement. Picture a hinge. The pin & the dealybobs that move around it would have a slide fit. The term is used for some kinds of bearings.
Yes, there is a range involved. But the point I'm trying to make is that the range itself is precisely defined.
I’m still looking for the useful reference here.
Last night I watched a rerun of an episode of “Psych”. Two characters were at a shooting range. The first character shot a bunch of rounds at a target. She was going to get out a new target for the other character, but he chose to use the same target she’d used. He quickly shot the same number of rounds that she’d used. Upon inspection, he’d made each of the holes that she’d made into a “doubled” hole.
Her shots determined the precision of the shooting session. It could be said that her shots defined a range. If both shooters had been “perfect”, there would be exactly one hole in the target & it would be the size that the largest bullet had made.
The accuracy of his shooting was determined by the distance between the centers of each of the holes that he’d “duplicated” with all of his shots.
How did her precision (or lack of precision) affect his accuracy?