I’m mildly entertained that this thread was resurrected today, by a user with 1 post, who joined over 2 years ago. That’s some good lurking!
As to the OP:
I’m a mechanic, so righty-tighty is The Way.
Then those people won’t be able to read altimeters either, until those are universally digital too.
What argument? It’s common sense what’s best.
I haven’t seen a round-dial altimeter in 4 years. Nor do I expect to ever see one again unless I take up GA flying. And maybe not even then.
Whether we like it or not, the future is coming. And CW & CCW are increasingly anachronistic.
A maybe-interesting thought I just had. …
CW & CCW are ultimately arbitrary. Early clocks could have been built turning the other way. But for whatever random set of reasons*, we settled on CW is the “normal” rotation and CCW as the “anti-normal” or “backwards” rotation.
When round-dial clocks finish dying out, we’re going to need another way to define normal & backwards. Using the right-hand rule seems like a logical basis. Under the right hand rule we’d still have to decide whether normal was the thumb pointing towards the observer or away.
My bet is that ab initio we’d choose thumb towards observer. It’s easier to hold your hand that way, and it follows the logic of the display projecting its info towards the observer. With the result that what’s now CCW would become the normal rotation and what’s now CW would become the backwards rotation.
Such fun. In reality the tradition that CW is “normal” would almost certainly carry forward. And 20 centuries from now schoolkids will be wondering why it’s still done that crazy way.
============
- Clockwise - Wikipedia sez early mechanical clocks were designed to mimic the behavior of northern hemisphere sundials. Wherein the shadow moves CW. Had the more technologically advanced part of humanity lived mostly in the southern hemisphere the opposite convention would probably have been established.
I hope you know you’re kidding. Rest assured there is no agreement on this point.
We have hundreds of posts in a multitude of threads on this topic to prove it. People have divorced over this issue.
I agree that the terms “clockwise” and “counter-clockwise” relate to analog clocks, which may disappear, turning something clockwise to tighten is not really related to clocks. As long as there are screws, nuts and bolts in the world, turning something clockwise to close or tighten remains the right way to do it, including twisty ties. Whether people understand what this has to do with clocks in a hundred years (I’m betting they still will, as decorative analog clocks and watches will still be around) seems to me to be a separate issue.
Sort of. Gotta be very very careful about terminology here. Sloppy terminology gives life to unexamined faulty assumptions.
I agree that turning rightwards to tighten is the current standard. And is labeled “clockwise”.
But that’s purely arbitrary; when machinery was being standardized in the early 1800s we could have established that leftwards was tighten. We didn’t, and here we are today: stuck with the consequences of that coin toss for both good and ill.
Where I’ll quibble with you is asserting that’s the “right way” as you put it. Doing twist ties the same way as most everything else has the benefit of standardization. No debate there.
But IMO we should *not *leap to the point of declaring that rightwards to tighten is inherently “better” than leftwards to tighten. Beyond standardization there *is *no difference in utility and we should not misunderstand that there is some difference.
We can’t even say that we should label it “rightwards to tighten” in preference to labeling it “leftwards to loosen”.
I’m carefully using “leftwards” and “rightwards” here precisely because CW & CCW inherently contain the idea that CW is more natural and CCW is less natural. My whole and entire point is that naturalness is not properly an aspect of rotation. It’s a category error to assume otherwise.
I don’t disagree. It was arbitrary at first, but is now standard. My argument that it is the “right way” is because it IS standard. And I agree that there is no reason that CL is better than CCW for tightening bread wrappers other than to conform to screw and nut standards. Our hands turn both ways with plenty of strength to tighten a bread wrapper.
Having said that, can anyone familiar with human anatomy and ergonomics provide any input on whether right-handed people (90% of the population) can turn a screw, nut or wrapper with more strength CL or CCW? That would represent something that isn’t either arbitrary or conforming to standardization.
“Leftward” over the top, or “leftward” under the bottom? 
We just don’t work consistently with a rotating frame of reference, so our conversion criteria ultimately end up arbitrary.
My earlier wiki cite said right-handed people have greater strength turning CW. They assert, without cited support, that since right-handers outnumber left-handers that’s why righty-tighty threads won out.
So geometrically the two possible choices are equivalent, but human ergonomically they aren’t.
Which makes sense to me. I was mostly arguing about geometry.
'Zactly. 