Such conversions are required in construction all the time, and I’m sure that’s not the only area. The fact that you are accustomed to using only very small units doesn’t change the fact that many people have to use units that can accomodate both precision measurements and large magnitudes relative to the required precision, and need to use them not only to express data, but to guide work requiring visualization of the measurements. It’s very difficult to envisage a length expressed with a large number of small units, unless those small units are related to larger units by powers of ten. 396"? I can’t picture that. 33’? That I can picture. But I can picture 10000mm (the same length, more or less), because only because I can see immediately that it’s 10m. So decimal inches are useless because we can’t visualize them (unless we grew up doing it, but of course we don’t). But decimal feet are also useless when lengths have to be able to express such things as 33 feet less the width of a 2x4 on each end - 32’ 5", and hence measurements are givin in feet, inches, and sixteenths (usually), giving rise to situations where conversion between them is needed in order to perform math or trig operations on the lengths.
Well, if your exposition went past me, mine definitely went past you as well. The “simple conversational shorthands” for the elimination of saying “times ten to the” are exactly the point. Are you honestly telling me that the use of imperial units for, say, length is feasible without the use of the full gamut of them, or at least several of differing sizes? 4 (miles, yards, feet, and inches) are used extensively, and none of them can be conveniently eliminated, except maybe either feet or yards (but not both). Do you seriously suggest we start measuring long distances with inches? Oh joy! Detroit is 18.1 megaInches from Chicago. Errr…say what? Sure, we could use such a system, but the megaInch is at least as difficult and probably more difficult to conceptualize as comparable metric units are to people who’ve grown up in modern western cultures. Your proposed means of bringing the imperial system of measurements on par with metric would involve changing it beyond all recognition. That doesn’t put the imperial system on par with metric, it puts your imaginary modified system on par with metric.
Yes, we could fix on a single imperial unit for each type of property and build a decimal system around it. But that’s not the imperial system. The imperial system uses the gamut of measures, from large to small, and those units are not related to each other in any consistent manner.
If you want to campaign for your bastard version of a metrified imperial system, go ahead. Don’t expect many converts, though, since proponents of imperial measurements will oppose you just as much as proponents of metric measurements will.
No because I do not argue for one arbitrary standard over another.
Whoa, and houses still get built?
Yes. Because… ready for it? … that is the metric system. Whammo, full stop. There is only one standard for measuring length, and a whole shebang of shorthand. Is this convenient? Sure. Is it only possible with the metric system? Of course not. Why don’t we do it that way for the English system? Because we haven’t been for years, and why change if houses can still be built just fine?
:shrug:
I feel like Christopher Walken getting irritated with repeating myself. I am not campaigning for anything at all. I am fine with the way things are. I am simply knocking people that are trying to pretend that the metric system measures things better, which it does not and cannot. I can barely even believe the system is more convenient, and the only reason I believe it at all is against my better judgment, because I have used the metric system and the Imperial system both many times throughout my life, so in the applications I use either of them they seem perfectly natural and simple to use.
I mean, come on, is the English language better than French? A person who spoke English might try to discuss its various advantages, but to a native speaker of French most of those wouldn’t actually amount to a hill of beans. French is a perfectly normal language that does what perfectly normal languages do perfectly well. True, if we all spoke English (or French or whatever) communication might be easier. But as it stands, I don’t see it presenting any huge roadblocks to social advancement. Nor do I see distinct measurement systems (and different customary uses of them each) as providing a significant roadblock to measuring. And since that is what measuring systems are for, then there really is no issue at all.
The fact that houses get built does not entail that houses could not be built with more efficient use of carpenters’ time if metric were used instead of imperial. Your sarcasm does little to advance the discussion. You said you’d never run into a need to convert between imperial units. I provided one example, and in fact they are not uncommon. There is no need to get snarky just because you apparently lead a sheltered life.
I don’t know exactly why you’d want to argue against the view that metric somehow measures things better (I don’t have a clue what that could even mean), because no one in this thread has said that, so far as I can see. All that people have said is that using the metric system is vastly easier - so much more so that converting to metric from imperial is worth the hassle. Of course, using this bastard metrified imperial system would have similar gains, but that isn’t really a desirable option given the current situation, for reasons which should be self-evident.
What I do find interesting is that you apparently don’t recognize how we deal with these units psychologically. When I see “831km”, my brain doesn’t parse that as 831 thousand metres, which is of course exactly what the notational system says, and it’s not that I don’t understand the meaning of the kilo- prefix in metric. I don’t have any idea what sort of distance 831000 metres would be, unless I mentally convert it to km, at which point I can visualize it. Oh, that’s like from here to Winnipeg. Gotcha. Likewise, if I see 0.2mm, my brain doesn’t parse it as a fifth of a thousandth of a metre, and I can’t visualize a fifth of a thousandth of a metre either. But I can visualize a fifth of a millimetre. While you’re right that in essence metric is just one unit of measurement and a lot of notational shorthand, you’re wrong about what’s going on in our heads when we use units of measurement. Our brains don’t have a very good grasp on orders of magnitude. The notational shorthand which you dismiss as virtually irrelevant overcomes that fact and allows us to use a group of units of differing orders of magnitude which are essentially just one unit with notational shortcuts, but which we, doomed to live within our limited brains, conceive of as psychologically distinct items.
Actually, you’ll note that’s why I use miles instead of kilometers… because of how I intuitively understand distance.
Oh, a shelter comment in the context of houses, very nice.
I hear that, yes. I do not understand it. I have no problem with either measurement system for what I use them for.
Riiiiigggght. And I can visualize an eighth of an inch. Really, can this discussion get more degenerated? Can we next go on to prove that celcius is better than farenheit because “c” comes first in the alphabet, and x is a better variable than w because of the number of strokes one uses to write it out? Or how about base ten is better than base sixteen because you only need to add a zero to multiply by ten.
Well, I know what is going on in my head, and that is knowing that I have absolutely no problem with varied systems of measurment and varied situations where I use them, as well as varied customs in their use (a 2000mL flask, anyone? Or how about a USP dissolution bath… I see hundreds of mills there…).
Irrelevant? To what do you suppose I am arguing for its irrelevancy? Dude, use the metric system all you want. I am when I want to, when it makes sense for me to.
Yes, but you also profess to have never had any need to convert between different sized units. Frankly, I don’t understand that, since such situations arise frequently.
Riiiiiigggght. Could you miss my point by any more? Sheesh. The point isn’t that centimetres are easier to visualize than inches, nor did I say anything that could conceivably be interpreted as such. Where the heck did you get that idea? Took Creative Reading instead of Creative Writing in high school?
The point is that sometimes you will get a measurement where the order of magnitude of the number will render you incapable of conceptualizing the value of the measurement. How far is 230,000,000 inches? You don’t have a clue until you pull out some paper and a pencil, or a calculator. But 230,000,000 centimetres? Well, I don’t have a clue either, but after lopping off the relevant number of zeros, I’m set. No hard math required. That is the advantage.
As for 2000mL flasks, 2000mL is well within the range of values one customaries uses in a lab. The issue isn’t with the size of the numbers, per se, it’s with numbers that are orders of magnitudes away from the range of values to which one is accustomed.
If I dealt with those kind of measurements quite a bit I am rather confident it would become second nature to me. Much like everything I’ve learned in my whole life that is based on arbitrary standards.
I didn’t get that idea at all, thankyouverymuch. I’ll say this once because I’m feeling nice, no snarkiness whatsoever: when you are trying to make a point about how clumsy one measurement system is, especially one whose common use dictates fractional representation, it is probably not the best idea to discuss something that is supposed to be better than it in terms of fractional representation.
And I love it when people ignore arguments presented by people like me and CarnalK just because they’re not directed at any specific person. erislover, systems of measurements aren’t only used for measuring distances. There’s also area, volume, weight, mass, energy, momentum, torque, etc. Frequently one has to measure several different values and then multiply or divide or otherwise mathematically manipulate them to get a new unit.
With metric, the shorthand for powers of ten makes it a simple thing to calculate and convert between these.
With the Imperial or American systems, I can’t see the same thing. Suppose, for instance, that you had to construct a tank that had to take seventeen pints of some sort of liquid. You’d have to start converting this into cubic inches or cubic feet or whatever unit of lenght-based volume you wanted. Yes, this conversion is arbitrary. Yes, it is relatively simple to get done. But you will inevitably take longer to do it than you would if you used the metric system, because the metric system has a 1:1 ratio between common “liquid volume” units and common “length-based volume” units. Taking longer to do it means reduced eficciency.
Every measuring system on this planet, and ones not on this planet, and ones we could devise in this thread can use powers of ten. What everyone misses in this thread is that the metric system has its yard in the meter, but there is no “foot” and there is no “mile”. There are powers of ten. Of course we can have ten yards, or a hundred yards (gee, ya never hear that, do you?) or whatever. We just don’t because it is customary to do so. This is not a problem with the measuring system, of course. We might as well make everything but the yard obsolete as we would switch to the metric system.
[ul][li]What makes the metric system so “great” is how it is customarily usedcustomary usage is exactly what is preventing the metric system from being universally applied.[/ul][/li][quote]
With metric, the shorthand for powers of ten makes it a simple thing to calculate and convert between these.
[/quote] Metric holds no sway over powers of ten. Indeed, since we all use the same base ten representation of numbers, all measurement systems are free to do this.
Yes, when I compare apples to oranges I too get frustrated that the first isn’t the second as well.
You misunderstand my meaning, and don’t address the point that I was actually trying to make. Yes, you can use powers of ten in the imperial / American system as well. I know this. You know this. Everything is hunky dory in this respect.
However, no matter how many powers of ten up or down the scale you go, the conversion between, for instance, pints and cubic inches/feet/yards is a clumsy one. The conversion between, to take the same example, litres and cubic metres is not clumsy, as it is consistent with the base ten number system that is used by most - if not all - modern societies. All you have to do is move the decimal point, if you have to move it at all.
This doesn’t even make any sense to me as it is written.
I do not understand why it is clumsy to convert between feet an inches… simply multiply the first by 12. Done.
“If you have to move it at all” indeed. How come you’re allowed to say that but I lead a sheltered life when I do? Gorsnak is going crazy just reading that, I’m sure.
Let’s go over this one by one, one last time. Perhaps this will make my objections to preference completely clear, perhaps not.[ul][li]All basic measurement units are arbitrary. There is no reason a yard is better or worse than a meter.[]Psychological preference for a measurement system is derived from repeated use of it in specific contexts; that is, for example, customary use of “liters” rather than “cubic decimeters” in a lab setting. Other examples include only considering multiples of 10[sup]3[/sup] in electronics, or fractional inches for drill bits (US) (though I should mention I have found some kits whose bits’ sizes are expressed in decimal form).[]The ease of performing operations with converting between different scales is specious at best. If using a calculator is difficult, I would largely expect you are probably not a good person to be performing such grandiose measurements. I mean that kindly, please do not build me a house. In any measurement system.Even the metric system ignores its own supposed strengths. This one might be a point of contention, but whatever. Common expression of weight is not, in fact, in Newtons as it should be but in kilograms. Of course there is no metric time (which doesn’t surprise me for the same reason the survival of the Imperial system doesn’t surprise me). The “base unit” of mass has a “times ten to the” prefix attached to it. The use of all the actual prefixes is also only standardized in specific fields; in fact almost no one uses picometers, deciliters, centiamperes… this list could go on and on.[/li][li]I would make the analogy to languages. Of course some languages may have a less or more complicated grammar than others, or little to no irregular verb forms, or what have you (there are several ways we may compare languages). This, however, is far from a convincing reason for people to switch their native language, and in fact I see no rush for people to all hurry up and learn esperanto or something. Why? Because it is not a significant roadblock to communication. Similarly, the measurement system does what it is supposed to and does not provide a significant roadblock to measurement. Where it is used often it is viewed as more convenient. Where it is not used at all it is viewed as a hassle to switch. Unsurprisingly to me, this “conversion problem” has been mentioned by both sides of the debate.[/ul][/li]
That about spells it out for me. I really have nothing more to say.
Well, you can SAY that you would understand that if you worked with it a lot, but you would actually be wrong. The human mind cannot visualize things like that. It works linearly, not exponentially. So if we can make something appear linear, then we can ‘see’ it better. We can do that easily with metric. I can say 1,000,000, 000 mm. How long is that? No clue. If I say 1x10[sup]9[/sup]mm, I still have no idea. But if I say 1000 km, now I have a picture of it, cause I can visualize one kilometer, not 1,000,000 mm. Even knowing that 1 km is 1,000,000 mm, I still cannot visualize it very well when I expand it even more.
Now granted, you can say 1,000,000,000 inches is 1x10[sup]9[/sup] inches, but how does that help you in any way? Calling it 1000 kiloinches also does not help, because kiloinches is not a standard unit. Now, if it was a standard unit used fur hundreds of years, then we could see it, but it isn’t, so we can’t. Now, we either get rid of all but one measuring unit in the English system, and get used to visualizing it at every scale, or we use metric, which started out by doing that in the first place.
While this may be true (I don’t recall any significant problems with conceptualizing exponential growth and decay, nor logarithmic propotions, nor inverse proportions, etc, etc), I am not at all sure how it applies to the discussion at hand unless you mean something by “exponential” that I am not aware of. Could you please elaborate?
When visualizing such a distance is critical I suppose you may have a point. Let me consider it before substancially replying; in the mean time, can you come up with some circumstances where visualization of actual distances are critical to the act of measurement?
I would say, “…because kiloinches is not customarily used.” Which is really my whole point sort of summed up into one tiny, if simplistic, package.
Yep. Conventional use is a strong selective agent. Now, if I could just convince you of that being a major part of the reason why the metric system hasn’t totally dominated all measurement we might be getting somewhere.
Or we leave things largely as they are and let societal pressures to change to the metric system through peer pressure (as has largely been accomplished in science) do their thing, rather than coming up with cockeyed reasons why one measurement system is actually better than the other.
If I had to do such a thing repeatedly I could probably give an accurate off-the-cuff response. If it was a critical problem I would never trust my own ability to calculate over a calculator’s. This applies to metric as well as anything, especially in problems involving derived units (newtons, volume, torque, etc).
Again, if this is a critical application I seriously would not trust my own head to simply shift decimal places. I have worked with a lot of people who make silly mistakes like this all the time, being a factor of ten off in one direction or another is simply not that uncommon.
Assuming that all construction workers spend the same amount of time studying, would you rather have the one working on your house:
a) Spend n minutes learning the clumsy, but not computationally difficult task of converting between different measurement scales?
Or,
b) Spend those same n minutes learning how to build houses?
