26 sats \ 14 replies \ @Undisciplined 16 Apr \ on: Why do Americans put so much store in their measurement system? ideasfromtheedge
It's not "objectively more rational". Metric is precisely as arbitrary as any other measurement system.
I don't understand why people are such zealots for metric. Btw, I would prefer America switch to metric, for the sake of international consistency.
In general, the Imperial system is a more human-centric system.
This is most evident in F vs C. Yes, its very clever that 0 is water freezing and 100 is water boiling, but we humans don't live in 0 to 100....so it makes it fairly useless.
Notice how the AC controls in Euro hotel rooms have decimals....so you can set to 19C or 19.5C.
Thats because the C scale is so crude for human use, that simply moving from 19 to 20 can be too much of a jump.
Europeans never know the bliss of the 60s or this crisp morning of the 50s. They are constrained into absurdly small area between 10.5 and 16.75. Its frankly embarrassing.
Whereas in F, its a simple human-centered scale. 0 is the coldest you will generally feel and 100 is the hottest. It places man in the center of importance, instead of C, which relegates human experience to an after thought.
C is the brutalist-architecture of the temperature systems.
reply
Lovely response. I thoroughly endorse your human-centric approach and will give it a mental spin next time I need to notice the temperature.
However, I have to say I rarely, if ever, pay attention to the actual temperature number in daily life. I would typically step out into that crisp 50s morning without having mentally noted the number. in fact the only time I do actually think of a number is when there's frost on the ground.
Now how about weights and lengths?
As somebody who measures a horse in hands, I'm not seeking what's right or wrong or looking to change anybody's mind. I would simply love an eloquent explanation such as the one above.
reply
You could make a similar point about pounds and feet being more precise than kg and meters. When you get to the scale of miles vs km, I doubt it makes much difference to anyone.
But metric system is better for scientific research?
reply
I agree. Certainly meters being divisible by 10 makes it better suited for modern engineering since it makes the mental math so much easier. Also its nice how 1gr of water is 1ml of water (this benefit only works for water, but well water is common in many things so it is still very useful).
However, as an aside, the 12-based system (inches) or 16-based system (oz) was better in the time before marked measuring sticks were widespread. This was because 12 or 16 was divisible by more factors than 10 based approach.
You need to cut either a 1ft or 10cm board into thirds....in 12-based its simple. In 10-based it becomes more complicated without having a marked measuring stick (ie 4 inches vs 3.33cm).
Its funny how something as simple as "prevalence of marked measuring sticks" could influence the usefulness of meters vs feet as a measurement units.
In the old days, a workman would just have a length of string that was known as 1ft long. By folding the string multiple times, they could generate the various sub-units needed. This is harder to do with a 1m length of string since you quickly fall into needing decimals.
reply
I'd say so, but only for the unit conversions. Those don't really get used with temperature and scientists use Kelvin more often anyway, since it's the more physically meaningful value.
reply
I love this response.
reply
you could argue metric is objectively more rational given that it standardises conversion factors between different size units, and makes those conversion factors into powers of 10, which matches nicely with our number system. it also has superior convenience for converting between units of different dimensions.
that said, there's nothing objectively better about the actual individual metric units themselves. a metre is no better than a foot for measuring length. a litre is no better than an ounce. even having the numbers match with our number system doesn't have to be unique to metric, since you could easily design a similar system using feet, milli-feet, kilo-feet and so on.
where the metric system objectively outperforms is in converting between units.
1 litre of volume is 1 cubic metre. taking the base unit of length and cubing it gives you the base unit of volume. it's all neat and fits together, and the numbers still line up with the base-ten counting system. doing the same with imperial, 1 cubic foot is 996.614 fluid ounces (standard imperial, not US), which is not as neat nor easy to remember nor easy to work with mathematically.
reply
1 liter is not 1 cubic meter. The conversion is 1 cubic centimeter = 1 ml, so 1 liter = 1 cubic decimeter.
Those points are all about convenience of doing mental conversions, but there are conveniences of dividing English standard units: 12 and 16 are both more divisible than 10. It's all entirely subjective about which is more rational.
reply
reply
You can see how they didn't do the "rational" thing here, though. It should have been the conversion you mistakenly wrote, but they knew that was too unintuitive, so they fudged it.
reply
This is really what I'm really trying to angle at; "they". Why is it so triggering, tribal, and woven into identity (or at least it appears that way to me)?
Also, could you pass me a 2mm allen key, please? Sorry, I mean a 5/64 one.
Maybe it's because I'm not brought up on it but arguably metric measurements more human-centric when you get down small.
reply
I’m not using “they” in a tribalistic way. I’m just referring to the people who designed the metric system.
As the scale gets really large and really small, I think metric is a lot easier to use.
reply