In a message dated 3/4/02 3:24:51 AM GMT Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:


>
>         Spurious precision can arise in convering fractions to decimals.
> One sixth of an inch, for instance ....
>

Hello Robert,

I am glad you brought this up. I have noticed throughout this debate that
there is some unrealistic interpretation of old figure going on from all
sides.

Folf have been taking fairly blunt figures, observed at a time when it was
not regarded as as crucial as it is seen in this debate, converting them as
if they were definitive measurements, and making interpretations based on
accuracies which are an illusion.

Interpretation to suit an argument is also rife, using certain reporters
observations which suit and discounting others which dont, without good
reason to discriminate.

This is a thorny question, made so for a variety of reasons, which is
arousing a surfeit of heat and nowhere near enough light. I do not pretend to
know the figures from years ago and would argue that probably no-one does
definitively.

As soon as I see ancient texts being used, with unrealistically high
precisions quoted, as a 'proof' of pro or con small cell theory, it smacks of
bias.

These texts are a curiosity in todays situation and, taken together, can tell
us if we are within the parameters of years ago. Interpreting them to one end
of the potential scale may turn out to be correct but seem arbitrary and
unproven.

Quotes such as '5 cells in just over one inch' were just fine at the time of
observation for the percieved needs of the time, but we cannot say with any
degree of accuracy except within a fairly wide range, what it actually means.

Murray