Talk:Anti-metrication/Archive I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Criticism for requiring actions proved impossible in constructive geometry to mark off stick in fundamental units

According to this criticism, any system that uses units different from basic numbers like 2 or 3 become a problem "in the field". The argument is that we should use a measuring system compatible with geometry, not with the accidents of biology.

However, the problem is that our numeric system is already based on 10 digits. The benfits of the metric system are based in the fact that it is a measuring system compatible with our numeric system, so calculations and conversions are much easier.

So, weighting both circumstances, what is more relevant for the majority of the people? Making measures "in the field", or easing up calculations? I'm inclined to say that easing up calculations is more relevant. Luiscolorado 14:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you and have added a short note to the effect in the section. On a completely different note but regarding the same section. Don't you think the title is rather long winded and thus somewhat difficult to figure out (at least until you've read the section)? I've simplified the title a little by cutting the Criticism for and the to mark off stick in fundamental units (which had been missing an indefinite article anyway) however it remains a little lond winded and unclear. Any suggestions? Jimp 25Nov05
Sorry, I forgot to log in before I totally changed this paragraph in the article by arguing against this criticism. As a mathematician and a former carpenter and welder, I feel qualified to comment on both the theoretical and practical sides of the question. I have put the reasons for rejecting the criticism in my edit of the article. To address Luiscolorado's comment above, a carpenter or other worker "in the field" can easily divide a length into 5 equal parts as easily as into 2 or 3 equal parts. And it can be done, if desired, with no more than a pencil and a freely movable straight-edged plank. The fact is, in practice almost any workman will do any division by means of calculations. That is, he/she will measure the length, angle, weight, etc., then divide the number by the desired number of parts, and measure off the resulting fraction. Further, the ease of division of a physical object into some number of parts has very little practical relevance to the ease of use of a system of measurement. If you want to compare, note that it is more work for a carpenter in the field to divide 19 5/8 inches into 3 equal parts than to divide, say, 49.9 cm into 3 equal parts. Aftermath 21:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Historic/cultural associations

Should there be some reference to association of the metric system with Robespierre, the Reign of Terror, and the "Cult of the Supreme Being"? AnonMoos 01:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Æsthetics

25 September 2005 Crissov changes Aesthetics to Æsthetics.

30 September 2005 N0thingness reverts this commenting "Æsthetics - it looks nice, but we don't use Old English"

I did so like Æsthetics. Yes, it does look nice. No, we don't use Old English. Where's the connexion? Using the letter æ is perfectly valid in Modern English. If it's good enough for Encyclopædia Britannica, ain't it good enough for us? Jimp 25Nov05

Divisions

Dividing by three is simple in a base-12 system but difficult with a base ten. 
Even taking a quarter in base ten gives a fraction,
whereas in many non-metric systems this too is easy.

Says the article. What nonsense! Dividing by three is simple in base twelve but try dividing by five. Taking a quarter in base ten does not give a fraction. Ten tens are one hundred thus one hundred is base ten. A quarter of one hundred is twenty-five. A quarter of a metre is twenty-five centimetres (closer to the average length of a foot, by the way, than are twelve inches). Ain't this "all too easy"? Jimp 25Nov05

Perception of impracticality in the United States

In this section there's currently this paragraph:

Further complicating the matter is that many cities, particularly in the Midwest and Southwest, have been laid out in blocks that are approximately 0.1 mile on a side. For example, the average block size between 15th street and 115th street in Chicago is 0.12 miles (0.2 km). As such, a 10 block journey is about 1.2 miles (2 km). A conversion to kilometres would foil this system.

This makes me wonder why this is not a reason for the metric system, since it seems easier to me to do the math with metres or kilometres than with miles or yards.

I found out that the block size in Chicago is not 0.12 miles, it's in fact exactly one furlong. I doubt that many people in the US measure distances in furlongs or chains (=0.1 furlong), so for the more practical units: One furlog is an 8ths (=0.125) statute mile or 220 yard. In metrical units it's 201.168m. If you calculate with 200m or 0.2km or you make an relative error of less than 0.6%, OK for everydays use IMHO and better than most maps. So the conversions are (at least) as easy with metres (* or /200) and kilometres (/ or * 5) as miles (/ or * 8) and still easier than with distances given in yards (or feet). Maybe the paragraph should be removed, I don't see anything with kilometres foiling this system here for Joe Average. - Alureiter 16:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Alureiter. I'm removing the paragraph. ElTchanggo 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Advertising Clause

Large supermarkets in the UK have also attempted to undermine the metrication process. They place small metric price signs on the edges of shelves and use these to claim they are pricing in metric. However, all around the store are very large signs advertising the products purely in Imperial units. They claim that the law requires them to price in metric but does not require them to advertise in metric.. Does this still go on? I can't recall having ever seen this, but certainly not lately. Perhaps its just my local supermarket that doesn't do this. My point really that unless anyone has seen an example of this, we should either modify this to say "formerly" this occured, or remove it. --Ooblick 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the policy?

How much would it actually cost for the U.S. to switch to the metric system?

I am sure this issue has been discussed before. This page gives arguments that are clearly not from a NPOV, and in some cases are clearly just wrong. However the page is describing antimetrification, saying that these arguments are used to justify the point of view, not that they are correct.

What is the policy? I doubt that we would allow an an challenged list of pro-racist arguments on the Racism page, even if the justification is that "these arguments are used to justify Racism".

-- Chris Q 12:55 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)

Is there such a word?

Is there really such a word as "antimetrification"? For that matter, is there even such a word as "metrification"? (The usual word is "metrication".) --Zundark 13:59 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)

I have added redirects. There is such a word, but "metrication" is much more common.

Conversion costs

Moved from topic. But converting between different units of measurement is rarely necessary. Is it harder to remember a whole number, or some fraction such as 25.4 or 39.37?

I don't see the significance of remembering a fraction such as 25.4 or 39.37. I know no metric units that have these multiples. -- Chris Q 14:06 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)
I think that those numbers are 25.4 mm per inch and 39.37 inches per meter. In which case the person is trying to convert between the two systems, not within them. --rmhermen
Thanks I see now. Of course that is only an argument for not having multiple systems.


"How much is the ongoing cost of maintaining several standards, converting for international trade, etc? Apparently none if you shift the cost to somebody else who has to convert your units of measurement into the local ones." -- great! so much for democracy and fairness and international trade! -- Tarquin

Removed

Removed:

Still, the Indy 500 would never be the Indy 804.67; the Daytona 500 would never also be the Daytona 804.67; an American football field would never be referred to as 91.44 meters long; Jules Verne would never write 96,561 Kilometers Under the Sea; A 9-pound hammer would never be known as a 4.0823-kilogram hammer; Peter Piper would never pick 7570.8 cubic centimeters of pickled peppers; "You dig 14,515 kilograms and what do your get? Another day older and a deeper in debt."; top fuel drag racers would never admit to doing the 0.40234 kilometer in under 5 seconds. Oh well, if you give a proponent of the metric system 2.54 centimeters, he'll take 1.6093 kilometers.


And the 100 metre race? Sure, the old units have centuries of connotations. No-one's saying metrication bans the use of the words. As I wrote on the article, in France the pound ("livre") is still commonly used informally, on markets for example, as a half-kilogram. Are you saying, Gpietsch, that your cultural identity is so fragile that a change of units shatters it? -- Tarquin

How would it make you feel?

If your culture is accustomed to using a system of measurement that dates back to the Roman times, and somebody else comes along with a different one and says that the whole world must adopt his system of measurement, how would that make you feel? The 100-meter race is just the metric equivalent of the 100-yard dash. -- Gregory Pietsch


It would make me feel like I need to grow up and stop investing so much emotion in trivialities. That argument about Roman times hardly applies to the USA, does it? -- Tarquin

Well, the American units were adopted from British units more than two centuries ago, and the British units were adopted from Roman units. The ancient systems used body measurements for linear measurements. Weight units were determined by how much a human or animal could carry. In ancient Egypt, about 3000 BC, the cubit was defined. It was calculated from the length from the extended fingertips to the tip of the elbow and was used as a standard of linear measurements. In the first millennium BC the Greek unit of measurement for length was the width of a finger, 16 fingers equaled one foot. Also at that time the Romans divided the foot into 12 unicae. Unicae means twelfth part and is the origin of the word inch.

The Roman system used the libra, or pound, as its unit of weight and the mile as its unit of distance. Liquid weight was based on the pint and dry measure on the quart. That a "pound" is abbreviated to "lb" today reflects its origins ("lb" is a contraction of the word "libra"). Much more recently, in 1830, the US Senate ordered an inspection in the customhouses and uncovered quite a variety of "standard" pounds. In the following years, a new standard pound was dispatched to the customhouses and to the governor of each state and adopted in 1828 as the official Mint reference. In 1959, all countries sharing traditional units adopt a standard pound (see below). (There was actually very little change required.)

The first attempts to standardize the measures in England can be traced to the Magna Carta (1215). At about this time, the "Iron Yard of our Lord the King" was prescribed, subdivided into 3 feet, each 12 inches long. Our yard itself is descended from the derivation of a unit of length based on the human arm.

Sets of standards for length and weight, generally in bronze, were sent from the capital - Winchester originally - to the main cities. In 1496, discrepancies had crept in and, following a Parliamentary inquiry, new standards were made. The same happened again in 1588, under Elizabeth I, and again in 1758. The last one, the Imperial Standard Yard in bronze was manufactured in 1845 after the previous standard had been destroyed in the fire that burned down the House of Parliament in 1834. Copies of this yard were sent to the US.

In England, the mile - derived from the Roman "mille passus" or 1000 double steps - was originally 5000 feet long as in the Roman definition (1 "passus" = 5 feet). Later, it was stretched to 5280 feet to accommodate exactly 8 furlongs, the most popular measure of the time. Furlong comes from the Greek and Roman stadion, which they themselves inherited from even more ancient times. It seems to be the optimal length for the traditional plough. The 1 mile = 5280 feet definition was voted in England by Parliament in 1595.

An early definition of an acre was defined by how much land an oxen could plow in a day.

In the US, in 1830 formal standardization began under the auspices of the Office of Standard Weights and Measures. In 1959, all countries using sharing traditional units such as inches, feet, miles etc. decided that an inch would be defined as 25.4 mm exactly (or 1 cm = 1/2.54 inch). This is why an inch is the same length worldwide. Other traditional units were similar defined (1 pound = 453.59237 g - or 1 kg = 1/0.45359237 pounds exactly). This means that they are as standardized and as accurate as any metric unit. Indeed, they could even be considered as "non-decimal" metric units!

This century, the definitions of these units are every bit as accurate as definitions of metric units. Indeed, this high level of standardization and definition of the units not only mean that they continue to be used to this day but that men were placed on the system was able to get man to the Moon. Indeed, in metricated countries like Canada, the system is still used wherever government bureaucrats have not been able to force it away because it has wide acceptance, is accurate and people are comfortable with it.

The United States legalized the metric system in 1857 (and in 1897 in the UK). Those industries choosing to go metric have done so (and any others wishing to do so in the future may). Clearly, the general public and many professions did not want to and will only be forced to do so by bureaucrats and under legal threats. However, despite the obvious choice of most industries and the vast majority of people to stay with American units, in 1975, the United States Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act to begin a process of "voluntary change". A law calling for voluntary change is a curious thing since laws are meant to be followed. Since then, bureaucrats and government have continued to push to getting rid of American units. The people have never been asked for their opinion, but if they had, they would favor the inch, mile, ounce, gallon, and pound over the respective metric equivalents.

-- Gregory Pietsch


how would that make you feel?
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW IT WOULD MAKE ME -- OR YOU -- FEEL. Wikipedia ia an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Is there really a public debate over whether or not the metric system should be adopted? If so, perhaps there should be an encyclopedia article discussing it. But this is one of the sorriest pages I have seen here. As far as I know, no advocate of the metric system claims that other systems are "inaccurate," so I do not see how claiming that feel and inches are "accurate" is relevant one way or the other. I think the whole article should be deleted. An article on "the metric system" can have a section on debates concerning its adoption. An article on systems of measurement can include some of what is here on the talk page, which is indeed mildly informative. But as an article on a debate or movement, this article seems poorly researched and not at all NPOV.
The people have never been asked for their opinion, but if they had, they would favor
is a good example -- an encyclopedia should report what people do do, and say -- not what the "would" say "if" they were asked! Geez! Slrubenstein


Greg, my point about the USA was that is doesn't have its own culture stretching back to the Roman times. Any change will necessitate a rough transition period. If we went by your logic, the ATX would never have supplanted the AT, nor the PCI bus the ISA, because transition would have been judged too painful. 50 years from now, everyone in the UK will have grown up with the metric system as 2nd nature, and they won't bat an eyelid at it. Read La Guerre de Boutons, that mentions anti-metrication in 19th century France. These days no-one cares. sic transit... and all that -- Tarquin

It's happened already. I think that Pounds, Shillings and Pence made a reasonable currency system. My kids think that they were quaint but they're glad they never had to use them -- Derek

Who says pecks aren't still used? They are still used in the Midwestern USA. --rmhermen


In answer to the question posed in the RC log, a peck is a unit of dry measure (yes, that't right folks -- it's a unit of volume that can only be used to measure certain things. That's a little quirk worth preserving, right?). It's equal to 8 quarts or 1/4 of a bushel. Prizes will be awarded to the first person who can find out: (1) what 4 quarts are; (2) how many quarts in a bushel. ;-) -- Tarquin

an inch would be defined as 25.4 mm exactly

You mean an "international inch". Then there's of course also the different "U.S. survey inch", used in parallel, with most people not even aware which one they are using at any given time.

the system was able to get man to the Moon

Yup, but the Mars observer was not as lucky, crashing because of forgotten unit conversion, to the tune of $750 million.

in 1975, the United States Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act

Just like the decision of the English parliament to redefine the mile in 1595. Are you against that one too?

AxelBoldt 19:38 Sep 17, 2002 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-metrication_Archive_I_d5e7.html"