I could not resist looking at this reference. 99.9%(+/-0.1%) of this is concerned with analysing data extracted from a distribution NOT with uncertainty in making a measurement. Like my planks, the spread in 100 planks may be +/-12mm but the uncertainty in anyone plank is +/-1mm...different things.
It is full of contradiction and confusion apparently 1.8 is the same as 1.80...it is not in the world of measurement ! 'hogwash' to use the author's vernacular.
Below is one of his lists of evidence, I have highlighted in red evidence that would be called 'anecdotal', ie no evidence of any worth.
I have highlighted in blue statements that make sense.
The disadvantages of sig figs include:
Given something that is properly expressed in the form A±B, such as 1.234±0.055, converting it to sig figs gives you an excessively crude and erratic representation of the uncertainty, B. See section 7.5.3 and especially section 15.5.
Sig figs also cause excessive roundoff error in the nominal value, A. This is a big problem. See section 6.8 for a concrete example.
Sig figs cause people to misunderstand the distinction between roundoff error and uncertainty. See section 6.8 and section 5.4.
Sig figs cause people to misunderstand the distinction between uncertainty and significance. See section 13, especially section 13.3.
Sig figs cause people to misunderstand the distinction between the indicated value and the corresponding range of true values. See section 4.6.
Sig figs cause people to misunderstand the distinction between distributions and numbers. Distributions have width, whereas numbers don’t.Uncertainty is necessarily associated with some distribution, not with any particular point that might have been drawn from the distribution. See section 1.2, section 5.4, and reference 1.
As a consequence, this makes people hesitate to write down numbers. They think they need to know the amount of supposedly “associated” uncertainty before they can write the number, when in fact they don’t. Very commonly, there is not any “associated” uncertainty anyway.
Sig figs weaken people’s understanding of the axioms of the decimal numeral system. See section 15.5.7.
Sig figs give people the idea that N nominal values should be associated with N uncertainties, which is just crazy. In fact the number of uncertainties scales like (N2 + N)/2, as discussed in section 8.1.
The sig figs approach cannot possibly apply to algebraic variables such as A±B, so you are going to have to learn the A±B representation anyway. Having learned it, you might as well use it for decimal numerals such as 1.234±0.055. See section 15.5.5.
Et cetera
There are 89 pages in this reference...full of contradiction and condescending, snappy quotes
Thats all for now
