5% Rule vs. r^2 value

Starting in the right wing today, we have the lean, the mean, the smaller-the-better.... FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE PERCENT RULEEE!!!!!

And coming to our left wing, we have the "Equation Equalizer," the one that wants to be as close the one as possible, .9999987689 on the calculator but #1 in our hearts, RRRRRRRR SQUARED!!!!!

Today, I asked a question in class. Here, I'll give you the floor, Narrator- or, as boxers refer to it as, the "canvas" of the ring-

Narrator: Well, the floor of our physics classroom is pretty dull- I've been meaning to ask Mr. Battaglia if we can spice it up a bit. But it really works well with spinny chairs and running around in fuzzy socks-

Not that floor, Narrator! Ugh, never mind. Just let me take over. I think we're losing the readers.

We were doing a lab, and a specific group had an r squared value of .997 (the closer r^2 is to 1, the more accurate it is). However, when they used the 5% rule, they got 4.08%- which still falls in the parameters, but is definitely on the higher end of the spectrum. I wondered, how is that possible? Aren't both the r^2 rule and 5% rule supposed to prove the accuracy? So, I asked. And here is the difference:

Both of them determine accuracy. BUT- for different things:

• The 5% rule proves how accurate your data is.
• The r^2 value proves how well your line fits your graph.

Well, that's all for this physics showdown! I hope you enjoyed this battle between our beloved 5% rule and the honorable r^2 value. And remember- though they are both important and good tests of how well things worked, they are different individuals- and we should treat them that way. Hope you all enjoyed this segment of Shirley That's Not Science! I'm Shirley, reporting from the BIBPBAIICSR- obviously, the Battaglia IB Physics Boxing Association Incorporated International Corporation Shirley Rocks. Back to you, Flying Pig.

P.S.: Has anyone noticed I've used bullet points in every single one of my posts? What can I say? They're handy!