What we have right now is not an approximation, but a binary measurement. Turning sex into an approximation would be considered a significant step forward considering science tells us it is not binary.
Regardless, my earlier question stands. At what point is it acceptable for an approximation to not be accurate in detail? What's the acceptable level of error in approximations?
I'm fairly sure the lifes of those affected negatively by the error are outside the "acceptable level". We're talking about humans here, not mathematical rounding errors.
Boolean is simply a binary variable, having two possible values: true and false.
Does this mean approximations should not be used, or does it mean that one should be aware that the map is not the territory?
The important question is the second one I posed. What is the acceptable level of error in an approximation?
We're dealing with people.
> and the significance of it.
People are generally pretty significant. 70 million people is very significant.
> 70 million is not a significant number of atoms of most things, for instance.
70 million people is a pretty significant number of people.
> The important question is the second one I posed. What is the acceptable level of error in an approximation?
Since you seem to have mistaken my rhetorical question for an actual question, I'll restate it as a statement: 70 million people is not an acceptable level of error in an approximation.
Is that a correct assessment of your position?
That's a reasonable approximation, yes. :P
At what point is it acceptable to say that something is an approximation, and should not expected to be precise and accurate in perfect detail?