Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Zero Sum
No, in this example the second shooter was "perfect", becuase he hit what he was aiming for every single time.

His shooting was more perfect than hers, but it wasn't perfect. If her skill had matched his, how many holes would have been in the target after she shot all of her rounds? If we assume that her first shot was placed perfectly, wouldn't her initial hole become her new target?

I said, "How did her precision (or lack of precision) affect his accuracy?" It didn't.

Correct. His accuracy was unaffected by hers.

It affected HER accuracy.

As the first shooter, she set the standard. Her skill affected her accuracy & her accuracy determined the precision of the session.

148 posted on 01/06/2008 8:17:32 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]


To: GoLightly
His shooting was more perfect than hers, but it wasn't perfect.

We are assuming that he was aiming for the holes that the first shooter made, and that he hit each one, correct? Now, it's possible that his aim was so bad that he just completely missed the target everytime, or perhaps he intentionally missed the target, or by some fluke he aimed at one hole and the bullet went through another, etc. But if we assume that he hit exactly what he was aiming for with each shot, then yes, his shooting was perfect.

If her skill had matched his, how many holes would have been in the target after she shot all of her rounds?

If her aim were perfect, and she aimed at the same point with each shot, then there would be exactly one hole and it would be exactly at the spot where she aimed. If the second shooter's aim were perfect, and he aimed at the same spot, there would still be only one hole.

If we assume that her first shot was placed perfectly, wouldn't her initial hole become her new target?

One would think so, but she's the one with the gun go she gets to decide what to aim for. :)

As the first shooter, she set the standard. Her skill affected her accuracy & her accuracy determined the precision of the session.

Unfortunately, we still seem to be using the word "precision" differently. You seem to be talking about actual spread of the shots, while I am talking about the aim itself. A shot is accurate if it hits its mark, i.e. if it hits where the shooter wants it to. This depends on the precision of the shooter's aim, but is also affected by things like the calibration of certain parts of the gun. However, if the aim is imprecise, then the shots will tend to deviate from their intended marks (one may land a bit to the right, another up and to the left, etc.), and thus be inaccurate.

At any rate, we are discussing an illustration. My claim itself is found in post 122. It is this:

Anyway, I think the analogy might be this: In science, it is meaningless to say that measurements are accurate if they are all over the place (i.e. imprecise); in logic, it is meaningless to say that a statement is accurate if it is not defined precisely. In both cases, there are ideals for both accuracy and precision, but the ideal of accuracy cannot be attained without also attaining the ideal of precision. Also, the further one deviates from the ideal of presision, the further one [necessarily] deviates from the ideal of accuracy.

153 posted on 01/06/2008 9:25:51 PM PST by Zero Sum (Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson