Why are Americans (and some Canucks) SOOOOO conservative about metric?

Mangetout · August 31, 2007, 8:38pm

[QUOTE=initech]

This post is more a response to Mangetout than tomndebb , which is why it doesn’t make any sense. My apologies…
[/QUOTE]

See, but what you’ve done is to set aside the system of feet, inches and eighths, and work with a measurement that can be expressed as a single value. That’s precisely why metric is easier.

“So why not just use this methodology, but retain the old units?” I hear you ask.

OK, suppose it wasn’t 28.625 inches, but 28.625 feet - unless you have a tape measure marked in hundredths of a foot, you’re not going to always find it easy to work out how much of a foot the decimal portion actually represents.

Not so with metric. 28.625 metres is easy, because the decimal portion naturally describes exisitng divisions.

Bobotheoptimist · August 31, 2007, 8:51pm

[QUOTE=dropzone]
However, even I, one of the louder supporters of continuing to use the American system so we can piss off everybody else, find it silly when I’m reading a popular science book and they give measurements in both systems. I’m an edumacated person and can deal with metric units. I find it patronizing.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Science and, to a lesser degree, technology has generally standardized on metric, at least the stuff I’ve dealt with. I don’t know the conversion to discuss 50nm fiber, and I don’t want to know it.
“Hey Bobo, we need to run 13 yards of 0.000001969 inch fiber for this test. Might need some longwave in there too, so have 'em rustle up some 0.000000315 inch as well”

But Cheyenne is 100 miles north and it’ll take less than 4 gallons each way if I drive at 75 mph.

Mangetout · August 31, 2007, 8:56pm

You’ve touched on what appears to be a fairly common, if never-quite-uttered misconception about metric systems; they don’t have to be adopted all at once, and even when they are, if you happen to mention the word ‘pint’ or ‘pound’, nobody will come and haul you away in the middle of the night. Or at least that doesn’t happen here - maybe they’d do it differently in America.

Martin_Sable · August 31, 2007, 9:05pm

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I would imagine that if you’re resistant to the idea of units in base 10, you might also not like decimal points.
[/QUOTE]

Both Fahrenheit and Celsius do have units (degrees) in base 10, and are just as easy to calculate with. With meters/kilometers vs miles/inches, the metric system in indisputably superior (How many inches in 1.54 miles?..my head hurts). But as I’ve already said, that’s not a factor when it comes to Fahrenheit vs Celsius. In a practical sense, Celsius is no more “metric” than Fahrenheit.

It’s clumsier to communicate using decimal points in ordinary conversation and while broadcasting weather reports, which is why Valteron’s little rhyme doesn’t go, “Zero is freezing, 10.2 is not, 19.8 is pleasant, 30.1 is hot.” If someone were trying to impose a “0 = freezing, 10 = boiling” scale on you, and saying things like, “What’s the problem? It’s easy. Zero is freezing, one is not, two is pleasant, three is hot. If you need more precision, just use decimal points” would you think the same?

Officially, weather stations in the US used to record temperatures to the nearest tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, every one or three hours. These days the official records are in Celsius (though cloud heights are still in feet, oddly). Does that make much of a difference? Probably not. But it is a loss in resolution.

[QUOTE=Ale]
I really don´t understand this argument, Celsius is a lower resolution model?
[/QUOTE]

That’s probably because you’re not used to thinking in or communicating with Fahrenheit. I used to “talk weather” all day, both on the air and in classroom settings. In casual conversation, I found I could communicate information more quickly and with more nuance in Fahrenheit than in Celsius. It’s subtle, and probably has something to do with how humans process language. There are simply a greater number of phrases that can be used to convey subtly different meanings to listeners who are “fluent” in Fahrenheit.

I’ve already conceded that this advantage is trivial, and unless you’re a linguist or a broadcast meteorologist or high school science teacher or a weather nerd, probably all but unnoticable. But it’s there.

Cheesesteak · August 31, 2007, 9:12pm

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
See, but what you’ve done is to set aside the system of feet, inches and eighths, and work with a measurement that can be expressed as a single value. That’s precisely why metric is easier.
[/QUOTE]
1/12th of a foot is called an inch, there’s no law that says I MUST break up all partial foot measurements into an inch anymore than I have to relate measurements >3ft in yards/feet/inches.

I can call something 1/2 or 1/3rd or 3/4th of a mile if I want, instead of recalculating it in feet or yards. I can use tenths of a foot if I want and tenths of an inch if I want. FTR, I have measuring devices with both of those sizings in my home.

It’s common to use 1/3rd of a cup even though that’s not an even number of ounces, it’s very uncommon to use 1/3rd of an inch, though 1/3rd of a foot is 4 inches.

Foot, mile, cup, inch, gallon, whatever, they are all simply units of measure, and we are free to divvy them up any damn way we want.

initech · August 31, 2007, 9:16pm

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
See, but what you’ve done is to set aside the system of feet, inches and eighths, and work with a measurement that can be expressed as a single value. That’s precisely why metric is easier.

“So why not just use this methodology, but retain the old units?” I hear you ask.

OK, suppose it wasn’t 28.625 inches, but 28.625 feet - unless you have a tape measure marked in hundredths of a foot, you’re not going to always find it easy to work out how much of a foot the decimal portion actually represents.

Not so with metric. 28.625 metres is easy, because the decimal portion naturally describes exisitng divisions.
[/QUOTE]

This is fun. FTR, I don’t really have any problem with the metric system.

That said, no one has ever asked me to measure 28.625 feet. Ever. At that kind of scale, I’ve never needed accuracy beyond +/- an inch or two. If I did (maybe I decide to build a 747), I’d absolutely use the metric system.

In my real life, however, English standard does just fine. I use it to figure out the depth of a shelf, or the height of a ladder.

Now, when it really matters (in matters of Dr. Pepper, for instance. Or cocaine), I’ll use metric.

dropzone · August 31, 2007, 9:18pm

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Foot, mile, cup, inch, gallon, whatever, they are all simply units of measure, and we are free to divvy them up any damn way we want.
[/QUOTE]
Well, we are in AMERICA. In Canada they’d toss us in jail and God knows what they’d do in France.

Mangetout · August 31, 2007, 9:19pm

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
1/12th of a foot is called an inch, there’s no law that says I MUST break up all partial foot measurements into an inch anymore than I have to relate measurements >3ft in yards/feet/inches.

I can call something 1/2 or 1/3rd or 3/4th of a mile if I want, instead of recalculating it in feet or yards. I can use tenths of a foot if I want and tenths of an inch if I want. FTR, I have measuring devices with both of those sizings in my home.

It’s common to use 1/3rd of a cup even though that’s not an even number of ounces, it’s very uncommon to use 1/3rd of an inch, though 1/3rd of a foot is 4 inches.

Foot, mile, cup, inch, gallon, whatever, they are all simply units of measure, and we are free to divvy them up any damn way we want.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, but dividing them all by ten (and having them nest inside one another in multiples of ten) is easiest, because it also happens to be the number base we commonly think and work in generally.

GorillaMan · August 31, 2007, 9:27pm

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
I can call something 1/2 or 1/3rd or 3/4th of a mile if I want, instead of recalculating it in feet or yards.
[/quote]

So? If working in approximations, which ‘3/4th’ mile surely is (what’s the ‘th’ stand for? ), then a kilometre can be divided just the same. If working precisely, then the mile has to be divided into its smaller unit, which you probably won’t be doing in your head.

Ahhh, the other problem with the American system…the gallon is the wrong size

[QUOTE=Martin Sable]
It’s subtle, and probably has something to do with how humans process language. There are simply a greater number of phrases that can be used to convey subtly different meanings to listeners who are “fluent” in Fahrenheit.
[/QUOTE]

What on earth do you mean by this?

Mangetout · August 31, 2007, 9:27pm

[QUOTE=Martin Sable]
Both Fahrenheit and Celsius do have units (degrees) in base 10, and are just as easy to calculate with. With meters/kilometers vs miles/inches, the metric system in indisputably superior (How many inches in 1.54 miles?..my head hurts). But as I’ve already said, that’s not a factor when it comes to Fahrenheit vs Celsius. In a practical sense, Celsius is no more “metric” than Fahrenheit.

It’s clumsier to communicate using decimal points in ordinary conversation and while broadcasting weather reports, which is why Valteron’s little rhyme doesn’t go, “Zero is freezing, 10.2 is not, 19.8 is pleasant, 30.1 is hot.” If someone were trying to impose a “0 = freezing, 10 = boiling” scale on you, and saying things like, “What’s the problem? It’s easy. Zero is freezing, one is not, two is pleasant, three is hot. If you need more precision, just use decimal points” would you think the same?
[/QUOTE]
I agree. In practice, however, the coarser resolution of celsius just doesn’t make a difference - for example, on the BBC 5-day forecast for weather in my area, whole degrees are used - the one-degree resolution far exceeds the accuracy of forecasting anyway.

Even if we were to regard celsius as part of the metric system (and Fahrenheit not), this wouldn’t be the selling point by any means. The key benefit of the metric system is in those areas where different units exist for different purposes (measuring large and small distances, volumes or weights), and that these units all nest within each other by a simple set of rules that happens to be rooted in a mathematical base with which we’re all familiar.

GorillaMan · August 31, 2007, 9:30pm

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I agree. In practice, however, the coarser resolution of celsius just doesn’t make a difference - for example, on the BBC 5-day forecast for weather in my area, whole degrees are used - the one-degree resolution far exceeds the accuracy of forecasting anyway.
[/QUOTE]

Would I be right in thinking the Celsius one-degree resolution seems to be about the limit of human perception, too?

Martin_Sable · August 31, 2007, 9:37pm

I suspect that some of you are letting your enthusiasm for the rest of the metric system (which is far superior, in terms of ease of calculation and conversion) carry over automatically to Celsius (which is not) just because, hey, Celsius is attached to the metric system and metric is best.

Valteron or others, can you please tell me some advantages Celsius has over Fahrenheit? The only argument I’ve seen put forth so far is “Zero is freezing, 100 is boiling, and that’s nice and easy to remember if you need to bring in your plants off the balcony before they freeze.” (I find that one weak. You probably have half a dozen passwords of six characters or more that your remember without any problem, so I don’t buy the argument that it’s a challenging burden to remember a single number like 32 F.) It’s not even universally true. Zero and 100 C are not the melting/boiling points of water on, say, the surface of Mars. Even on Earth, it varies with salinity and pressure/altitude.

When we’re talking about temperature, we’re usually talking about comfort level, which is what Gabriel Fahrenheit originally based his scale on. 100 degrees F was meant to be human body temperature. Okay, Gabe missed by just a bit. But body temperature varies individually in any case, and slight fevers above 100 are not uncommon, so this doesn’t bother me. In general, “Temperature will rise into the triple digits today!” means the outside air will be warmer than your internal body temperature. In terms of comfort, that’s a very significant and not at all arbitrary. (It’s also universal, i.e. true regardless of salinity or pressure or what planet you’re on.)

Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine we’re back in the 1800s on an alternate Earth, long before Lord Kelvin forever linked the Celsius scale into the metric system. People Earth have suddenly realized, “Hey, metric is great, but we ought to have a temperature scale to go with it. Which shall we choose? Let’s hold a conference to decide.” Any scale, Fahrenheit or Celsius or even Reamur, can be linked to the metric system with equal ease. (Lord Kelvin will later make a scale starting at absolute zero, using Fahrenheit- or Celsius- or Reamur-sized degrees.)

What arguments would you make for selecting Celsius over Reamur (widely used in France at the time and place our conference is being held)? What case would you make for Celsius over Fahrenheit?

Mangetout · August 31, 2007, 9:40pm

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Would I be right in thinking the Celsius one-degree resolution seems to be about the limit of human perception, too?
[/QUOTE]

Pretty much - the climate control in my previous car switched to half-degree increments in the middle of its range - because a single degree seemed to be more noticeable there.

Mangetout · August 31, 2007, 9:42pm

[QUOTE=Martin Sable]
I suspect that some of you are letting your enthusiasm for the rest of the metric system (which is far superior, in terms of ease of calculation and conversion) carry over automatically to Celsius (which is not) just because, hey, Celsius is attached to the metric system and metric is best.
[/QUOTE]
I agree - it’s just part of a package - not the selling point. Having it tied to the boiling and freezing points of water puts a nice handle on it for me, but I’m not going to mistake familiarity for superiority here.

Martin_Sable · August 31, 2007, 9:48pm

[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
Would I be right in thinking the Celsius one-degree resolution seems to be about the limit of human perception, too?
[/QUOTE]

Possibly. I’ve seen pro-Fahrenheit articles claim that one degree Fahrenheit is about the limit of human perception, too, though. It would be interesting to do a study. The “limit of human perception,” probably varies by individual, and the two scales are close enough that it wouldn’t surprise me if some people can detect changes of even less than one degree F while others barely notice a change of one full degree C.

tomndebb · August 31, 2007, 9:50pm

[QUOTE=initech]
Sure. How about 28.625 inches?
[/QUOTE]
9.541667 inches?

Actually, when I was working with civil engineers and surveyors, (few of whom I’ve found to be civil), our measurements were in hundredths of feet, rather than inches. (Of course, any print that took stuff out to the hundredths of an inch was generally laughed at, since neither a Caterpillar 345, nor a round-point shovel, (nor even a length of “standard” length 12" ductile iron water main), can get much more accurate than a tenth of an inch in the best of circumstances–and finding a merchant to sell measuring tapes in hundredths of the inch is a project in itself.

GorillaMan · August 31, 2007, 9:58pm

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Pretty much - the climate control in my previous car switched to half-degree increments in the middle of its range - because a single degree seemed to be more noticeable there.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting, I was just thinking about a similar situation, with one which gave Celsius readings in 0.5 degree increments. I wasn’t sure what made them think that whole number weren’t enough, or whether it was that people using Celsius would otherwise never see the third digit used.

[QUOTE=Martin Sable]
…the two scales are close enough that it wouldn’t surprise me if some people can detect changes of even less than one degree F while others barely notice a change of one full degree C.
[/QUOTE]

Fair point.

[QUOTE=Martin Sable]
In general, “Temperature will rise into the triple digits today!” means the outside air will be warmer than your internal body temperature. In terms of comfort, that’s a very significant and not at all arbitrary. (It’s also universal, i.e. true regardless of salinity or pressure or what planet you’re on.)
[/QUOTE]

Universal? So everybody finds <100 OK, but >100 hot? Humidity isn’t the slightest issue? Of course, it’s all so obvious now :rolleyes:

RedFury · August 31, 2007, 10:11pm

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
The hardest thing I had to do was learn 24 hour clocks. It’s not as easy as it sounds and it takes a while for it to become second nature. I keep all of my clocks like this now so as to avoid AM PM mistakes. I already know how to do it, so I might as well keep it going.
[/QUOTE]

Not sure you know this, but my Father taught me long a go a very simple formula for doing the 24 hour time conversion. It goes like this:

Take any time in a 24 hout format after passing 12:00, subtract two…and voila! there’s your time.

Examples:

A-13:00 - 2 = 11, get rid of the initial number and you have 1:00 PM

B-22:00 - 2 = 20 becomes 10:00 PM

C-17:00 - 2 = 15 becomes 5:00 PM

D-19:00 - 2 = 17 becomes 7:00 PM

Homework:

A-18:00 is what?

B-23:00?

C-21:00?

D-14:00?

I suggest anyone try it for a bit…you’d see how quickly it becomes completely intuitive.

MarcusF · August 31, 2007, 10:12pm

This is a common American misconception - that “Europe” is whining at the US to adopt the metric system. Europe doesn’t care if you stick to furlongs a fortnight at home because - as most American contributers have accepted - you are already using the metric system in science, any engineering area where you have to interact with the rest of the world, and many multinational commercial products (the 2 litre Coke bottle etc.).

Of course the UK is in the same situation but we have partly made the transition to using metric for everyday - my kids always use cm/mm - except when talking about their height.

RedFury · August 31, 2007, 10:13pm