Okay my brain hurts: I'm looking for another word for...

[optimistic]

...unknown factors.


I'm thinking science, and when you have too many undetermined occurences. What do you call that?

<~~

 

[Spoooon]

Crap, I can't think anymore either. Are you talking about when you have unknown variables that could have influenced the result of an experiment?

 

[Zim Hosein]

Errata maybe

 

[Spoooon]

Well, the word for what I was thinking is confounding. That may not be what you're looking for.

 

[KokomoGST]

unqualified? unquantified? argh... now you got me too

 

[optimistic]

No! Confounding Something more in the lines of: undeterminables or irradic variables, well I'm not really writing a science paper, I'm just trying to sound more intelligent in an argument. But it sounds 'scientific' when said out loud.

 

[optimistic]

Originally posted by: Spoooon
Crap, I can't think anymore either. Are you talking about when you have unknown variables that could have influenced the result of an experiment?

Yeah, thats it. Too many factors that could screw things up. -So you can just forget about it!

 

[xyion]

whats wrong with using "variables"? If it works for math and science, then it might just work for you.

 

[optimistic]

Yeah, that's what I'm going for 'variables' .......wait..that could work. Hmm, anyways I thought there was a word that existed that had had the combine meaning of "variables + unknown."

Maybe you're right. The word is probably already staring me at the face.

 

[Dragnov]

Intangibles?

 

[bizmark]

indeterminacy? random factors? outside influences?

 

[RossGr]

Hidden variables?

 

[kt]

ambiguity?

 

[datalink7]

not known factors?

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: optimistic
Yeah, that's what I'm going for 'variables' .......wait..that could work. Hmm, anyways I thought there was a word that existed that had had the combine meaning of "variables + unknown."

Maybe you're right. The word is probably already staring me at the face.

Well, confounding variables are those variables that are unknown and immeasurable that can influence the results of an experiment. In a closed laboratory setting, you would restrict and limit as many variables as possible that could possibly affect the results, limiting the number of confounding variables.

When doing a correlational analysis, you might compare TV watching to intelligence. You find that there is a direct correlation showing that the more TV you watch, the less intelligent you are. However, there are lots of sources of confounding. For instance, you watch more TV because you don't have access to books. Because you don't have access to books, you read less and are less intelligent. You get what I'm saying I think.

 

[optimistic]

Thanks for the explanation spoon. I wasn't totally clear on the word confounding. Must be all the TV I watched

And those are very good words Gr1mL0cK & kt. I was thinking somewhere along the lines of that! But I just stuck with the simple solution for now "variables".

Thanks guys for helping me through this difficult time


<~~Must feed brain, so it grow big & strong! ARRRRRR!

 

[Snapster]

anomaly ?

 

[Zebo]

Erronius ( if a mistake was made during the testing or fraud occured) or Outliers ( if unexplained by not following a trend or data sequence) Anomoly ( is unexplained for a while)