Comments on: Down with the Metric System

by: Tim H

Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:40:25 +0000

There you have it, folks. World-views really do hang together. The seemingly most unrelated things are all part of a coherent package.

by: R

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:27:20 +0000

I miss the 90s when It seemed that our country was moving forvard where christian fundementalism racism and attacks on the poor as I believed were going away the world was becoming more international there was that handshake between the israeli prime minister and yasir arafat and science was winning the culture war. Unfortunatly in the year 2006 we still debate evolution and the metric system and esperanto. All I see Is smaller cell phones why havnt we been to mars yet? In the 20th century we were afraid of killer robots taking over the world what we have is worse I pefer killer robots to christian and muslim fundis METRIC RULES!!!!!!

by: Tim H

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:43:53 +0000

Razz– I know what you mean calling our system the “imperial” units, and don’t blame you. It comes from the British Empire.

However, our inherited units could equally be called the “peasant” units, or (updating for America) the “redneck” units. Or how about (keying off of Copeland’s fanfare) “measuring units for the common man.”

By rights, the metric system ought to be called the imperialistic one.

by: razzendahcuben

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:27:14 +0000

Yes, very good points. I realize that the length of a yard is arbitrary. But I am not concerned with the origin of these measurements (whether they’re indigenous, etc), but rather their relation to one another.

Yes, we *could* have deciyards, but we *don’t*, so my point remains about the awkwardness of converting between imperial lengths. I do think that for the science and engineering community a universal standard is extremely convenient and reduces error and confusion (besides being vastly more efficient). On a local level I see nothing wrong with indigenous units and certainly appreciate their contribution to culture and heritage.

Anyway, I’m really enjoying the posts on agrarianism. I’d like to learn more.

by: Tim H

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:44:45 +0000

Keith– Yes, that is granted, but don’t let the nomenclature fool you. The point is, they have a single lineal unit, meter, with prefixes that simply mean 10, 1/100, 1000, and so forth.

Likewise, pick a single lineal unit in our system (say, the inch) and go to town with multiples of 10, ignoring the other units (mile, yard) as if they did not even exist.

That’s fine, in that context. Say, calculating the force between two aggregates of electrons at a certain distance.

1. Why should that context drive the other units out of business, in contexts where they might be more intuitive and satisfactory?

2. Why not have standardized to the “yard” rather than the “meter”? Deciyard, kiloyard, centiyard, etc.?

Any unit is ultimately arbitrary.

The question is whether some units though arbitrary couple in to our human experience in a richer way, including history and intuition, and thus are worthy of being preserved.

by: Keith

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:43:31 +0000

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of 1 mile = 5280 ft, 1 ft = 12 inches, etc, as opposed to 1 km = 1000 m, 1 m = 1000 mm, etc.

by: Tim H

Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:29:57 +0000

Keith– I was going to do a followup to MB’s post but you beat me to the punch.

The point is, the unit that is divided is arbitrary; after that, you can divide by whatever is convenient.

The “mil” in US industry is 1/1000 of an inch.

There is nothing better or worse between the mil and the millimeter from a scientific standpoint.

by: Keith

Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:01:48 +0000

Interesting points, but as an engineering student I’d rather use a universal measurement system wisely built around base 10 than the obscure, “personal” units of the indigenous imperial system.