Which of my posts does this refer to? And how do you answer the other one?
By the way, I must apologise for my poor command of English. I shall have to look up dichotomy.
erislover, you have a lovely knack for misrepresenting people. Elethiomel pointed out that converting from regular volume units (litres, gallons) to length-based volume units (cubic centimetres, cubic inches) is a non-trivial operation with imperial units - it’s not even an integer multiplication as conversion between gallons and fluid ounces would be, since the units are entirely unrelated - and a power of ten operation with metric units, and sometimes no operation at all (i.e., cubic centimetres to millilitres requires no mathematical operation, as the two are equivalent, which is what “if you have to move it at all” referred to). I said you must have lived a sheltered life because you apparently don’t see why anyone would ever convert between two different units for the same property. And now you say Erethiomel is saying the same thing as you had been? Huh? Erethiomel is pointing out that it’s easier to convert between different units for the same property with metric, same as I am.
I have been trying to decide how to understand this repeated misrepresentation of others’ views in your posts. Last night I thought perhaps my own posts weren’t as clear as I thought, but now I see you mangling other people’s as well, so that conclusion is out. I cannot tell if you simply don’t understand what others are saying, or if you are intentionally misrepresenting them in an attempt to score some sort of debate points by defeating the misrepresentations you make. In either case, it doesn’t seem worth continuing to address your posts.
Obviously it would be foolish to convert the construction industry to metric without converting the industries which supply products to it as well. European lumber mills, if I’m not mistaken, cut boards into metric sizes. Perhaps Erethiomel can confirm this. Obviously walls aren’t going to be framed on 40cm or 60cm centres if drywall comes in 4’ x 8’ sheets, rather than 1.2m x 2.4m sheets.
Yes, I believe they do. I don’t know the current state of British lumber mills, but here in Norway the boards are cut in metric sizes, and probably in the rest of Europe as well.
Ah, here we are, aren’t we? We return here again and again, apples and oranges that just aren’t the same. The metric system has no other units besides those seven, the imperial system has plenty units that, in their time, were more or less independent of one another. And yet, for some reason, people keep trying to compare the two by using the metric system as the standard for comparison. And I don’t see why. I believe such arguments are usually considered “circular”, but don’t let that stop you. I believe you will find you are always correct, perhaps a small comfort.
“Why does the Imperial system suck when compared to the metric system? Because we can’t use it like the metric system.” Well, excuse me if I remain entirely unconvinced.
When you accuse someone of misrepresentation, please take care to not misrepresent them.
Which is to say, “I, erislover, cannot do that task easily; one explanation for that could be that I have never needed to with any reliable frequency.” Which is not the same as insisting it is never done, nor never needed. Perhaps you are thinking of this comment?
Meaning, when the triviality of conversion makes an impact I’ll jump on this bandwagon. As far as I can see in the world around me, we’re all doing ok with it. Some calculators even do the conversion for you, metric-to-imperial, imperial-to-imperial, metric-to-metric, and imperial-to-metric.
For example, I have factored numerous quadratics. It is now to the point that given quadratics in a large number of cases I can factor them for the infamous FOIL method in my head—because I, erislover, have done that so much, not because factoring is easy (a lot of people really never “get it”).
Tell me when you come to any conclusions.
Since no one has come close to addressing a majority of my five points in two pages, you won’t find me being very surprised.
If you find anything you think I haven’t addressed, here is a easy method to reply with: just copy and paste it directly from this post (don’t quote it or it won’t work):
[list=1]
[] text here
[] text here
[] text here
[] text here
[] text here
[/l*ist=1]
Oh good grief. The argument, since you insist on not seeing it yet again, no matter how often it is stated, is that an advantage which metric has over imperial measurements is that the mathematics of converting between units is trivial for metric, and non-trivial for imperial. The fact that calculators exist does not eliminate this advantage. Having to carry around a calculator is a cost. Having to take time to perform complex calculations in longhand is a cost. Metric does not have this cost. Imperial does.
Now, since you clearly are trying to deny this argument, you must either be saying either (1) the math for imperial isn’t more complex. This is demonstrably false, and obviously so, and hence the principle of charity demands that we not take you as saying this. Or (2) the simplicity of metric conversions isn’t an advantage. This would only be true if there were never any point in doing them, and hence if I am to interpret you as making any case whatsoever, I must take you to be claiming that there never is any point.
So if I misconstrued your argument, and you didn’t really mean to be saying that there’s never any point to converting between different units, then you have no point whatsoever.
Hence, either you have no point, or I didn’t misrepresent you. Take your pick.
As to your five points, they have been addressed.
- All basic units are arbitrary.
Irrelevant. Nobody has claimed the advantage of metric to lie in non-arbitrary basic units. This has been said several times.
- Psychological preference for a measurement system is derived from repeated use of it in specific contexts.
Depends on what you mean. If you mean ability to conceptualize measurements in different units, then sure. But that’s also irrelevant, since no one has claimed the advantage of metric lies in easier to envisage units. This is basically just point one reiterated in different language.
- The ease of performing operations with converting between different scales is specious at best.
Here you are dead wrong, and I really can’t fathom how you can still maintain this after everything’s been said. At worst the ease of performing operations is minor, though I believe the arguments given have amply demonstrated that the advantage is more than minor. It certainly isn’t specious, unless you’re making the demonstrably false claim that multiplying by 5280 is just as easy as multiplying by 1000.
- Even the metric system ignores its own supposed strengths.
Huh? It’s a problem with metric that most people don’t understand the distinction between mass and weight? Oooookay. I suppose next you’ll say it’s an advantage of the imperial system that it mirrors this confusion. The rest of your statements here don’t even make sense to me. Kilos aren’t the base mass unit, grams are. The fact that the mass of mid-sized objects are more easily envisaged in terms of kg instead of g isn’t “ignoring the strength of metric”, any more than the fact that long distances are more easily envisaged as km instead of m is “ignoring the strength of metric”. Using only the prefixes which are most useful isn’t “ignoring the strength of metric”.
Metric time is an interesting idea, but units of time are not arbitrary. The orbital and rotational periods of our planet impinge on our existence in ways such that timekeeping systems that didn’t include them as units would be unuseable, and years and days don’t line themselves up into nice power of ten relationships. Of course, we could divide days into power of ten subunits. Wouldn’t be a bad idea, actually, though given the state of the world, one would have to convince everyone to switch at the same time. Tricky.
- I would make the analogy to languages.
Well, you want to compare metric and imperial as if they’re both natural languages. I think your analogy is faulty. I think that the imperial system does bear close resemblance to a natural language - it’s thoroughly arbitrary throughout (Chomskyian considerations ignored - in point of fact the structure of natural languages is not arbitrary). The metric system, however, is not thoroughly arbitrary throughout. It takes an arbitrary starting point, and then builds upon that in a systematic way. In this way it is more like artificial languages such as logical notations and programming languages, and, just as those artificial languages have advantages over natural languages in expressing certain sorts of things, the metric system of units has advantages over the imperial system of units.
Ok…
That’s your call, not mine. I think it eliminates the distinction, myself.
Please do not… [list=1][li]build my house[]research my medicine[]design safety elements of my car[]research scientific theories[]or do anything else that requires accuracy[/list=1]… if you feel that checking your calculations with a calculator (or equivalent device) is a cost.[/li][quote]
Having to take time to perform complex calculations in longhand is a cost. Metric does not have this cost.
[/quote]
I don’t know how many times I’ve discovered erroneous calculations using metric units from other people’s work (and my own). I am not inclined to believe that this is a fault of the metric system, only that human error is what it is regardless of the system used.
Or I could be saying that your familiarity with use should not be conflated with its simplicity. All conversions, mathematically, take this general form:
[original measurement] x [conversion factor] = [converted value]. Is this “demonstratably incorrect” or do you mean something different by “math”?
[list=1][li]** All basic units are arbitrary.**[/li]Irrelevant. Nobody has claimed the advantage of metric to lie in non-arbitrary basic units. This has been said several times.
Yep. I noted that people didn’t address the majority of my points, not that they were all neglected. This one was accepted by all parties.
[li]Psychological preference for a measurement system is derived from repeated use of it in specific contexts.[/li]Depends on what you mean. If you mean ability to conceptualize measurements in different units, then sure. But that’s also irrelevant, since no one has claimed the advantage of metric lies in easier to envisage units.
Yes, they have. Please reread the thread. In fact, hey, whaddya know, you were one of the people that mentioned it!
You said: “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.” Bolding emphasis added.
[li]The ease of performing operations with converting between different scales is specious at best.[/li]* It certainly isn’t specious, unless you’re making the demonstrably false claim that multiplying by 5280 is just as easy as multiplying by 1000.*
When this calculation matters and will be done with a calculating device and perhaps even rechecked with one, sure it is. I gave an outline of the method for making conversions above. To ensure there is no loss of semantic transmission, please pay special attention to the lack of units referenced. Repeat as necessary.
I suppose I will grant that on most calculators it might take less keystrokes for conversion factors. That certainly is more efficient.
[li]** Even the metric system ignores its own supposed strengths.**[/li]You completely miss my point.
I’ll repost it for you:
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.
As far as time goes, you note:
- Wouldn’t be a bad idea, actually, though given the state of the world, one would have to convince everyone to switch at the same time. Tricky.*
You don’t say. Shocking. I’m sure no one ever mentioned anything like CUSTOM before as having an impact on switching measurement systems.
[li]I would make the analogy to languages.[/li]Well, you want to compare metric and imperial as if they’re both natural languages. I think your analogy is faulty. I think that the imperial system does bear close resemblance to a natural language - it’s thoroughly arbitrary throughout (Chomskyian considerations ignored - in point of fact the structure of natural languages is not arbitrary). The metric system, however, is not thoroughly arbitrary throughout. It takes an arbitrary starting point, and then builds upon that in a systematic way.
Well, in theory it does, sure. In practice, see point 4.
You also say:
In this way it is more like artificial languages such as logical notations and programming languages, and, just as those artificial languages have advantages over natural languages in expressing certain sorts of things…
Oh, you mean we can just consider subsets of the system in question? Well, in that case, why mention feet and miles at all? Oh, I know, because then you can make the apples and oranges comparisons with a question-begging standard! Huh. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
[/list=1]
Please stop misrepresenting what I say. Are you not reading carefully? Not understanding? Or willfully misrepresenting me? Stop, already! Intellectual dishonesty doesn’t strengthen your case. I never said that metric is easier to conceptualize. My claim, which you cite word for word and yet fail to understand, apparently, points to the ease of converting a measurement given in units where the value is orders of magnitude away from the range in which one can visualize, into a different unit where the value will fall within the range one can visualize. The example, which made this perfectly clear, is that for someone who can visualize in m and km, a measurement of 2150000m is easily visualized - while not easily visualized in m, it can be easily converted into km, in which it is easily visualized. The same does not hold true for someone who can visualize in feet and miles when asked to visualize a measurement of 6200000’. The advantage is in the system, not in the individual units, something you consistently fail to recognize.
As for the calculation error thing, guess what? I already do build your house (well, the trusses, anyways). Construction workers don’t commonly carry around calculators, probably because the things would die rapidly in the typical work environment. Calculations are generally performed with pencil on scraps of wood, in longhand. Sure people can mess up performing operations when using metric, but if you can’t see the increased potential for errors using imperial units, then you are essentially claiming that moving decimal points is just as hard as long division. That’s a pile of bs.
Your quip about subsets at the end completely misses the point, as usual. As I’ve said ad nauseum, the advantage to metric is in the system. Pick a single unit from each system, and you’re right, there’s nothing to choose between them. But the coherent structure of the metric system contrasts starkly with the arbitrary structure of the imperial system. This isn’t question begging, or apples and oranges.
Common expression of weight is in grams and variants thereof instead of newtons because people don’t bother to distinguish between mass and weight. This is not a failure of metric, but a failure of people.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. ‘Gram’ has no prefix. Kilogram is not a base unit.
The failure to use decimetres is meaningless. We use as many or as few prefixes as is useful in a given situation. The existense of unused prefixes has absolutely no relevance to anything, much let alone this debate.
So, what was your point, exactly?
At least know what you are arguing for:
http://www.bipm.fr/enus/3_SI/base_units.html
Thanks.
I admire your ideals, but take a more practical approach when I consider systems that people will use to perform operations. What they are raised with and understand well enough seems fine to me. If that is metric, hey, great. If that is some other system, hey, no problem.
Hey, if you say so. Seems to me that it is part and parcel of this measurement system you describe that people simply fail to use properly, you know, the one you are suggesting is somehow better? Remember that one?
Sorry, I was arguing about systems people used. It wasn’t until that last post that I realized you weren’t. If that’s the case, you’re right: visualization and conceptualization is irrelevant, to both our points. But I brought it up because it was relevant to mine. Why did you?
Sorry, I thought this was irrelevant. I’ll listen from now on, I swear. No need to make points you think are irrelevant, even to prove me wrong.
Oh, I hope I didn’t say that! But I suppose you are right, you can build my house in metric. Please don’t design it! 
Do you really, honestly, not understand the relevance of that point? Forgive me, but your comments seem to me like intentional dissembling. And I’m quite tired of it.
For the last time, and I promise never to post in this thread again.
Miles are no easier or harder to visualize than kilometres.
Yards are no easier or harder to visualize than metres.
But
Person A is familiar with yards and miles, and is given a measurement of 642000 yards. A is not able to visualize this distance in yards, nor can A convert this distance to miles without dividing by 1760, requiring a calculator or a tedious pen and paper long division.
Person B is familiar with metres and kilometres, and is given a measurment of 642000 metres. B is not able to visualize this distance in metres, but can still easily visualize the distance, since conversion to kilometres is trivial.
That doesn’t mean that metric units are easier to visualize. That means data given in units rendering the data unvisualizable due to the order of magnitude of the value is hard to change into useable data if it’s imperial, and easy to change into useable data if it’s metric.
You may now feel free to invent non-existent inconsistencies in what I’ve said in order to appear to be scoring debate points.
I’m quite certain I do. You think metric is better because it is easier to convert between units. Why would anyone ever need to convert units? Well, hey, so they can easier visualize their measurements! But visualization isn’t important? Well then what the fuck was your point? Oh, on preview I see you try to weasel around it again. I’ll give you a hint. If, in your deductive chain of reasoning about why metric is better, you use an example that is completely based on something you just told me is irrelevant, I might be inclined to disregard it. Just maybe. :shrug: I’m funny like that.
I am perfectly happy that people use the metric system. They can use it whenever they want, honestly, I have no beef about it. There’s not a thing wrong with it. Indeed, by every manner I have to evaluate the system, it seems perfectly suited to performing measurements. It just isn’t a “better” system. I have no method to choose between arbitrary standards. Indeed, if I did, then I would never say they were arbitrary. Sort of defies the definition.
The problem is precisely that both systems are useless. First off, let it be known that the lengths of each are completely arrbitrary, and being so, it makes sense to have them be usable arbitrary units, or at least based on something reasonable, not on water, like the metric system is (cubic centimeter of water, at room temperature is one gram, and has a volume of one milliliter)… those are useless. At least the English system is based on something reasonable, like the length of a pace, or a foot, or your hand, etc. Perhaps those have been out grown in time, but at least they made sense at one point or another.
Another silly argument is fractions versus decimals. They both have their uses… decimals are only better, if you’re in the same base and performing arthimetic on them. Fractions are still infitely superior precisely because they have infinite precision. Even with significant digits, would you rather round off the squareroot of 5, then divide by 3 and round that off too? Sure, if its the length of a fence, how about if its for the trajectory of a missile, or for landing your commercial plane… is there such a thing as not enough precision?
Base ten and twelve are both rediculous… both have been long outgrown by technology, and are only held onto because of man’s silly need to hold onto tradition. Obviously base 12 is difficult to work with since we work with base 10 in science and mathematics, but is base 10 any better? Really… how often does one need to know how many centimeters are in a meter? Knowing how many there are is completely useless knowledge, you only need to know in elementary school when they quiz you on that. And people say the same thing about the english system. How often does the knowledge that there are 5280 feet in a mile really important? Do you ever have a situation like your car breaks down 1/2 mile from the gas station, but you are only able to walk 723 yards at one go… can you walk that far? So why bother to base systems on converting from large to small units of the same measurement.
Clearly both of those bases are outdated and useless, I say we use something in base 2, and for the sake of liking two digit bases, how about 16? Now, why? Several good reasons. First off, the computer works in base 2, and everything one day will involve computers. So much time is wasted converting integers back and forth for storage, display, input, and computations, that could easily be saved if we both worked on more similar systems. Even worse is working with floating point numbers in computers. Obiviously, it also would work just as well with fractions and “decimal” (though techically that refers to using it in base 10). More interestly, is the fact that our brains think it two’s… yes-no, true-false, black-white, on-off. It is more logical to have a system based on that. And if you really want to get to something knitty-gritty, its more efficient, as it takes less space to physically write any number in base 16 than in base 12 or base 10. What’s the biggest 3 digit base 10 number, 999. what’s the biggest 3 digit base 16 number FFF (=4095, over four times as big… and the ratio gets bigger with each digit you add). But it basically boils down to computers… no more need for BCDs, or binary converters, or decimal converters. no more wasted time and space using and storing archaic numbers. And imagine how much easier programming computers would be…
There is one other way in which the metric system is superior to the old British system of units, which I haven’t seen anyone mentioned yet in this thread:
In the British System
There are two kinds of ounces and pounds: Ounces and pounds avoirdupois, and ounces and pounds Troy. (We’ll neglect discussing “fluid ounces” for the moment.) Which kind of ounce or pound you use depends on what industry you’re in and/or what you’re measuring. Precious metals, for example, are always measured in Troy weights, which gives rise to the old joke, “Which weighs more, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?” (The feathers, of course.)
There are three kinds of quarts and gallons: U.S. liquid quarts and gallons, U.S. dry quarts and gallons, and Imperial quarts and gallons. When you buy a “quart” of strawberries, you’re getting a slightly larger volume than if you buy a “quart” of milk to go with it.
There are two kinds of miles: Statute miles, and nautical miles. Aviators have a heck of a difficulty with this, because both are used throughout the Federal Aviation Regulations. A non-instrument-rated pilot has to have 3 (statute) miles of visibility in controlled airspace; he has to travel at least 50 (nautical) miles for a trip to count as “cross country”; Class D Airspace starts 5 (statute) miles away from an airport, airspeed indicators are calibrated in both statute and nautical miles per hour, etc…
There are two kinds of inches and feet: International inches and feet, and surveyor’s inches and feet. Surveyor’s inches are a teensy tinsy bit shorter than international inches; one surveyor’s foot is made of 12 surveyor’s inches. Maps and property lines were traditionally drawn in survey feet. So, is the “square footage” of your house’s lot (or of your house itself) measured in square surveyor’s feet or square international feet? Only the real estate industry knows, and they ain’t tellin’.
There are two kinds of tons: U.S. short tons, and British long tons. A short ton is 2000 pounds avoirdupois, while a long ton is 2240 pounds avoirdupois. (Thankfully there is not – yet – any such thing as “one ton Troy”.)
In the Metric System
There is one kind of gram and kilogram. There is one kind of centimeter and meter. There is one kind of kilometer. There is one kind of liter and milliliter. There is one kind of metric tonne.
Why is all this important? It’s important for those times when you do want to compare apples and oranges. Sure, when you’re trading “ounces” of gold and silver at the mercantile exchange, everybody knows you mean ounces Troy. But what happens when it comes time to load your silver bullion onto a truck?
“Here’s eight thousand ounces of silver bullion, please load it on your truck.”
(Truck driver assumes there are 16 ounces to a pound, like he learned in school, and divides 8,000 by 16 to arrive at a weight of 500 pounds.)
“You’re in luck, sir!” the truck driver says. “Our truck is almost fully loaded, but it’s exactly 500 pounds below our maximum gross weight. We can accomodate your load!”
(Truck driver loads silver bullion on his truck, roars off, and comes to a truck scale.)
“What the --” the truck driver is aghast – “We’re almost 50 pounds overweight! How the heck did that happen?!”
It happened because there are two different kinds of “ounces”.
If the silver bullion had been measured in kilograms, this never would have happened.
[Fixed coding. – MEB]
I agree, we should make sure the British system doesn’t use the same measurement name in different measurement contexts.
Oh, this is interesting – according to one rant on that “Metric Sucks” website, the U.S. liquid measures used by the alcoholic beverage industry are shrinking:
1 “half-pint” = 200 ml = 0.42 pints
1 “pint” = 375 ml = 0.79 pints (Less than 4/5 of a real pint!)
1 “fifth” = 750 ml = 0.198 gallons (A real fifth is 0.2 gallons.)
1 “half-gallon” = 1.75 liter = 0.462 gallons
Looks like my question has been ignored. So, why do you use the decimal system all the time, instead of, say, a based-12 system?
I’m guessing this is simply because this is the number system that everyone has been brought up with, and has been standard for ages (possibly stemming from the number of fingers people have?). Just a guess though.
Commenting on erislover’s earlier comments about saying how base ten can be applied to any system: if you applied base ten to the Imperial system, say by making a foot 10 inches, and a yard 10 feet, etc. you really wouldn’t have the imperial system anymore. You’d have the metric system with a different arbitrary size for the standard unit.
- You have no idea how Satanic the “ton” can be. Don’t forget, there is also “ton” as a unit in the refrigeration industry. Which can mean power, energy, or mass. From the CRC handbook,
- 1 ton of refrigerant (US Comm.) = 12,000 Btu (IST)/hr
- 1 ton of refrigerant (US Std - IST) = 288,000 Btu
- 1 ton of refrigerant (US Std - mean) = 287,774 Btu
- 1 ton of refrigerant (US Std) = 2009.1 lbm ice
1a) If you want to go phonetically, there is also the tun, which is:
- 1 tun = 252 gallons = 4 hogsheads
-
I have a reference here (I’m working on my science and engineering freeware program, and doing a lot of unit conversion functions) for a “Troy ton”, but CRC doesn’t list it.
-
Don’t forget too - there seem to be 4 types of “tablespoon” (US, metric, Australian, and German).
