>If you study Reaumur's statement, you will realize several things can be
>learned.  One is a high level of precision.


        -  yes; indeed, I fear, spurious precision.

        The figure "0.217 inch" implies uncertainty of only a few thou.
What instruments existed in 1740 to measure such a distance within a few
thou?  Is the distance being measured *defined* that precisely?
        Spurious precision can arise in convering fractions to decimals.
One sixth of an inch, for instance ....

        It is disappointing how few  -  even scientists  -  understand the
difference between precision and accuracy.
        The precision of a (reported, or putative) measurement is reflected
by the number of significant figures stated.  The last-mentioned place is
implied to be the only uncertain figure.  Thus, kids can produce strings of
8 "significant" figures from calculators or computers when a moment's
thought would show in many cases that they're all meaningless beyond the
2nd or 3rd, and indeed could never have been measured to an uncertainty of
only a few parts in 100,000,000 as implied by asserting numbers like
8.7621153 if measured on an instrument incapable of discriminating 8.76
from 8.74 units.
        Accuracy is different  -  it reflects reality, i.e. the actual
number of significant figures measured, and their variance.

        These are not 'scientific dictionary' defns but are intended to
introduce the concepts to those unfamiliar with the difference between
accuracy and precision.


R