Main      Site Guide    
Message Forum
Re: Metric=5/[9(Customary-32)]
Posted By: julian, on host 195.67.254.243
Date: Sunday, July 15, 2001, at 06:04:04
In Reply To: Re: Metric=5/[9(Customary-32)] posted by gabby on Saturday, July 14, 2001, at 22:24:08:

> > Ah yes, the final bottom line is not one of freedom of choice, but of "stupendous capital cost."
>
> Actually, the cost argument is the minor one, and that of freedom of choice the greater.


Haven't you yourself argued the need for standards to be standardized? This kinda goes against any freedom of choice, I'd say.


>
> Summary:
>
> Myth #1) Customary is less precise/scientific/logical.
>
> It can measure anything metric can and some things metric can't.
>
> Myth #2) Customary is harder to use.
>
> It is harder to learn. Ease of use is totally relative to experience.
>
> Myth #3) Customary is out of date.
>
> It's being used right now. In any case, time and the usefulness of measuring systems are unrelated.
>
> Myth #4) Metric is stealing our heritage and ought to be fought.
>
> There are better things to worry about.
>
> Myth #5) The U.S. is the only country that uses customary.
>
> Countries don't use measuring systems; people do. Everyone except for unfortunate folk under a few domineering European governments may use any system they like, even make up their own. In any case, the users of measuring systems and the usefulness of measuring systems are unrelated.
>
> Myth #6) Customary perpetuates ignorance.
>
> Measuring systems are used to measure, not to reach a goal of Enlightenment.
>
> Myth #7) A few militant Metric Nazis are really uptight about other people in other places doing things another way.
>
> OK, this isn't a myth. But European cultures' superiority complexes are nothing new.
>
> gab"Don't tread on me"by


While I basically agree with your summary, I take exception to two small details: Some of the adjectives ("domineering", "Nazi" and "uptight") used are unnecessarily rash, since I (maybe unjustified) feel part of the target. I'm not sure whether you mean them so seriously, and I'm not going to take them seriously, other than this comment. If your "uptight" refers to my answer in message 38604, I'd like to clarify that it was meant to put some perspective to your statement that "Metrification was never completed in any country".
I apologise if I have read something into words which they were not meant to say.

The other detail is a question of my education: What are customary units able to measure that metric aren't?

jul"likewise"ian

Replies To This Message