You do realize you're wrong and that your whole argument is based on a fallacy.
The brightest minds realized the need for a standardized height, and chose 100 cm, it's a single measurement that reflected meaningful data from the short plants all the way up to the very tall plants.
Yes, they could have chosen 3.14159 to the forth power or any number within their acceptable range, but they chose 100, maybe because it's an easy number to remember.
Don't get confused over the number, because what's important is it being meaningful and standardized.
When a measurement is standard, readers can easily relate the data from one study to another.
After reading your "solution" it's easy to see why you can't understand.
Taking a measurement at a certain proportion of final height is really foolish and all you'll have is a bunch of useless data taken at various heights which is exactly what they wanted to avoid.
The United States Department of Agriculture measures at the standard 100 cm and they don't even mention the height they just expect a certain level of competence from the reader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Naranja
You do realize, I hope, that the value of 100cm is totally arbitrary. No research ties that particular height of measurement to yield. Nothing at all obliges scientist to use a measurement of 100cm. If anything it would probably be better to measure at a certain proportion of final height. It doesn't really make sense to measure a Kandrian at the same height as a Veinte Cohol.
|