Likely, yes. Analogy might be more fitting. I often use them
interchangably, even though I'm aware of the difference, as I'm
not shooting for precision but rather accuracy with low
precision. But see, this is my point and it's a difficult one to
convey properly: Highly accurate can have a low precision. My
gun is accurate but not precise. I can't guarantee that I will
hit the specific bulleye every time but I will be in the proper
"range". However, one can be high precision with low accuracy. I
find this to be potentially more dangerous: You can hit a mark
precisely and be precisely wrong because it is inaccurate.
Hence, my tendency towards broader synonymous terms rather than
precise terms. The precise can lead us away from the main
bulleye but the accurate gets the 'gist' of it. I'll give an
absurd example: Pi. Pi can be computed to 10 billion places. But
if the answer begins: 9.314159265.. and continues to the 10
billionth place, it is better to say that Pi = 3. I'm shooting
for "Pi is somewhere on the high end of the 15th percentile (of
100%) between 3 and 4" Does this help? How do I convey high
accuracy/low precision when you are shooting for high precision?
Of course high precision/high accuracy is ideal but sometimes
that gets people into trouble for often what they THINK is high
precision/high accuracy is in fact high precision, low
accuracy... but are fooled by the precision and not noticing
that the target turned out to be over there somewhere.
