Talk:Metrication opposition/Archive 2
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Moving to meta
I'm for moving this page to meta. It doesn't actually say anything about an Antimetrification campaign (such as who supports it, when did it start, what were the significant events of its history.) It's just a load of opinions, delivered with quite a bit of bile, and the attempts of several Wikipedians to counterbalance them with NPOV. And the term "Antimetrification" Googles VERY badly: TWO results. "Anti-metrication" does a little bit better, but it's still crackpot sites whining about their rights to measure. Go and campaign for somebody's right to vote. Pick a real issue. -- Tarquin 22:31 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
No, this is a great page! Not only does it highlight the pro vs. con well, it's also a model of table usage.
By the way, on the "precision" thing:
- For example, the human body temperature, as expressed in Fahrenheit, always uses a decimal value.
Normal body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius, which is a round number -- not 37.0 degrees. When it's converted into Fahrenheit (to 98.6 degrees), it acquires a phony accuracy due to the excessive precision. The normal range is around 0.5 Fahrenheit. Sometimes parents worry that their child has a fever if the thermometer reads 99.0, but that's actually a normal body temperature. (Not to mention the variation between under-the-tongue, the inner ear and other bodily orifices. --Ed Poor
- No, this is an awful page! I agree entirely with Tarquin. I continue to find this article surreal -- it is not in any way an article about a "movement" (Such an article might be interesting); it is more like someone took a segment of a list-serve debate and turned it into a table. The "counter arguments" sound less like attempts to render the article NPOV than attempts to humor an idea that was bad to begin with. This page is not at all a great example of listing "pros" and "cons" because the various sides of the argument are so decontextualized and many of them are, frankly, silly. I have no idea who made any of these arguments, when, or why. I am left suspecting that some of these arguments were made by an isolated reactionary with too much time on his or her hands. I realize this may be terribly unfair -- but unless the article provides some context for the debate, it is hard to resist reaching this conclusion.
- What is needed is a good article on metrification, one that provides all the historical context, including specific, named, and contextualized conflicts that arose during the process of metrification (e.g. in 18xx the French government reverted for the following reasons; or in 19xx Senator A proposed metrification, senators B and C made the following objections...)
Tarquin is right -- the page should be deleted, and the contents transfered to meta or the listserve. Slrubenstein
- just popping in to say for the record there is metrication, which gives (IMO) a fairly neutral account. -- Tarquin
--- Sheesh. All this talk and someone could have just edited the entry. --The Cunctator
Old version
Old version of the article, for the sake of reference:
Anti-metrication is the process of rejecting the metric system in favor of a different system of measurement, typically the American or the different UK Imperial one. Some of the arguments commonly given for antimetrification (with counterarguments) are:
| Argument | Counter-argument |
|---|---|
| The definition of the metre changed no fewer than three times since 1790 (the latest being in 1965) and is currently deemed to be 1/299,792,458th of the distance light travels in one second. That's a real handy reference next time you are measuring a room for carpets or wallpaper. | In practice, the speed-of-light definition was codified based on the previous agreed length; nothing has changed except for a few physicists. The precise definition is used only when needed. The definition of the yard, for example, used to change each time the physical "standard yard" was measured. That's why the customary units are now defined in terms of the metric units, to avoid this sort of confusion. Since an inch is defined as 0.0254 metres, the problem applies equally to customary units. |
| The above is a a load of BS. The argument that the meter's length has changes is ONLY BROUGHT UP AS A COUNTER-ARGUMENT to the pro-metric crowd's assertion that the Imperial system is based on arbitrary lengths like "some dead king's arm length". The Anti-metric crowd knows better that to use this arguement offensively because it applies equally well to most traditional systems. | |
| Users of such units as miles, feet and inches, tons, pounds and ounces, gallons and quarts do not have to justify themselves. | But obviously neither do those who are comfortable with grams, kilometres, or degrees Celsius. |
| WHAT!?!?! I have NEVER heard this argument! This isn't even a real argument! | |
| American units are as accurate as metric units. | Metric units are as accurate as American units |
| Again: WHAT!?!?! I have NEVER heard this argument! This isn't even a real argument! | |
| Decimals are no more accurate than fractions. | But decimals are easier to work with and less prone to lead to mistakes when doing calculations. |
| The CORRECT argument here is: "Fractions ARE more accurate than decimals." Which they are! 1/3 is precise whereas .3333333333 is not really a third. As for ease, I find fractions MUCH easier than decimals. I can do this in my head: 1/3 divided by 1/4 = 1/3 * 4/1 = 4/3, EASY! whereas .3333333/.25 is REALLY hard to do on paper. |
|
| The fact that metric units are base ten in fact has virtually no relevance either to day to day life or to scientific and engineering manipulation. This is because conversion between units of the same dimension (e.g. centimetres to kilometres) is rarely necessary or useful. | This is just not true, since people convert between feet and yards, or pounds and ounces, quite frequently; and scientific/engineering applications definitely require frequent conversions. The relevance to everyday life derives from the fact that most people have ten fingers. |
| ARGUMENT 1: "The fact that metric units are base ten in fact has virtually no relevance either to day to day life or to scientific and engineering manipulation." - base 10 is relevant to us because we have 10 fingers. I can think of no other relevance in nature. This is the reason that the metric attempt at 100 degrees in a circle failed like the attempt to make time base-10. Base-10 is also not good for dividing as base 12 is. The real argument of this is that traditional units evolved as they did because they were the most useful to the most people whereas, the metric system is not.
|
|
| A base-12 measuring system is superior to a base-10 system, as 12 has many more factors than 10. The American system of liquid measurement is actually base-2 (a gallon is 64 fluid ounces), which has other advantages. | Actually American liquid measurements don't form a complete base 2 system, and even for a partially complete system requires the use of the gill, peck, bushel and quart. Not only are these unfamiliar to many people (even in countries where they are traditional units) but they are different from identically named Imperial units. Still, it is a lot easier to divide 12 by 3 than 10; but this is why metric boards come in 120-centimetre lengths, not 100)
The superiority of of base-12 or base-2 systems to base-10 systems is also disputable. Since base-10 systems are used for numbers, the argument of consistency may beat any other argument. |
| "Actually American liquid measurements don't form a complete base 2 system, and even for a partially complete system requires the use of the gill, peck, bushel and quart." - This argument is the same as the "Imperial system is too hard due to all the units you must learn like rod, stone, and peck" which is an assinine assertion. There is no need for anyone to use the archaic/obscure units (unless they want to). The metric system ALSO has it's own archaic/obscure units (shall we talk about metric time again?). "The superiority of of base-12 or base-2 systems to base-10 systems is also disputable." REALLY? You find it disputable to have a system that has more even divisors when the purpose of a measuring system is to usually divide? Interesting argument... Stupid but interesting. |
|
| Because one degree Fahrenheit is smaller than one degree Centigrade, degrees Fahrenheit are more precise. But of course, there's no need to measure in whole degrees. In practice, meteorologists and other scientists who are concerned about precise temperature often report temperatures in tenths or hundredths of a degree, in either system. For example, the human body temperature, as expressed in Fahrenheit, always uses a decimal value. |
Supporters of American units consider them to have a more human scale than metric ones. This is highly subjective, especially when one is arguing for miles and quarts instead of kilometres and litres. Still, the yard was originally defined as the length of some dead king's arm. The metre's original definition was 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator on a meridian through Paris, France, based upon an inexact measure of the circumference of the Earth. Which one is a more human scale? Given that the two lengths are within 10% of each other, it's your call. |
| AH! There it is! The "length of some dead king's arm" argument. It ALWAYS comes out from the pro-metric crowd! Now that I have pointed this out (and refuted it a few argument earlier, let's look at what was actually said- "...degrees Fahrenheit are more precise" - true anti-metric people do not make this argument because everyone knows that the centimeter is smaller than the inch and would be more precise. Why would someone make this argument only to have it turned on them? |
|
| The naming system of the metric system is systematic but repetitive. Humans find words that are distinct easier to store. The metric system does not lend itself to this. | This ignores the extra information that users of most traditional systems have to learn; multipliers of 4, 5.5, 12, 14, 16, 20, 200, 220, 1760, etc. By the naming system argument we should all learn to write using Chinese symbols since they are distinct for each word and thus easier to store whereas alphabetic systems are systematic but repetitive. The problem with Chinese being that its lack of systematic repetition means that you can't work out the sound or meaning of a new symbol whereas with an alphabetic system you have a fighting chance. This problem also applies to the measuring systems. Knowing the size of an inch doesn't help you calculate the size of a league without specific knowledge about their relative sizes whereas knowing the size of a decimetre lets you calculate the size of a megametre based on the meanings of the standard prefixes. |
| "The naming system of the metric system is systematic but repetitive. Humans find words that are distinct easier to store. The metric system does not lend itself to this." This is not the argument! The CORRECT argument is this: "The naming system of the metric system is systematic but repetitive. Humans find words that are distinct are less subject to mis-intepretation". Meaning: It's far more common for someone to say dekameters and the listener to hear decimeters than it is for someone to say yards and the listener to hear inches. The common metric endings and common suffixes lend to unit confusion.
|
|
| Different countries using metric units show preferences for different, often non-SI units. For example, in France, agricultural production is often measured not in kilograms, or grams, but in "qx" - metric quintals (100 kg). In this, American traditional units, standardized by international agreement in 1959, are more stable than metric units. | Again, this claim ignores the existence of troy ounces and pounds, the two slightly different miles used in the US, and the difference between U.S. and imperial units of the same name. The quintal is no longer legal in France. Furthermore, the existance of units such as quintal, and the "metric pound" of 500 grams (non-legal, but commonly used in France and Germany for example; a U.S. pound is 453 grams) can be taken to show that the metric system allows local flexibility, while retaining ease of conversion. |
| The supposed purpose of the metric system was/is to make one single measurement system that everyone used with no differences... The argument of "...but you Imperial users have your own units too" is not valid argument. The pro-metric rebuttal TOTALLY side-steps the correct assretion that the metric system's use has NOT created one single measuring system that all the world uses. It also correctly points out that there are no TRUE METRIC COUNTRIES! ALL COUNTRIES still OFFICIALLY use some non-SI units (e.g. the Nautical mile).
|
|
| It is often said that the United States is the only major country using a non-metric system. This is, however, false. Not only are there other countries that still mostly use their traditional units, but traditional units live on throughout the world. For example, France, the source of the metric system, uses pouces (inches) for tires. In Ecuador, liquids are measured in gallones. In China, distances are often measured in li. Even in countries where the government has attempted to replace traditional units, they live on. Take Canada for example: carpentry is done in inches, etc. | In most cases, these are transitory phenomena. In others, the pressure should be to rectify the anomalies, not revert back to pre-metric units. Canadians sometimes use hybrid measurements; this reflects the close connection between the Canadian and American economies, rather than any intent to retain imperial units. Tires are in inches in most countries, not only in France, it's just traditional and has nothing to do with convenience. |
| The Anti-metric argument is 100% valid! Pro-metric crowds will generally throw the "the rest of the world is doing it so so should the US" argument but when it's pointed out that there is not ONE 100% metric country, you get a brush off response like "these are transitory phenomena" which is BS!
|
|
| You shouldn't have to use another system of measurement just for tires. | Of course both the pro- and anti-metric will agree on this; the pro-metric would argue that tires should be measured in metric, the anti-metric forces would argue that everything should be measured in their prefered local traditional system. |
| So due to the pro-metric crowd, we now have to buy our tires in a mixed system: 185/60R14 = 185mm wide, .60 ratio to fit on 14" rims !!! ggggreat! | |
| Imposing the metric system, or any system of measurement, on people against their will is undemocratic. | This argument ignores the long-standing role of governments in defining units of measurement. For purposes of trade, a standard system is needed. Besides, the system of measurement you use is imposed on you anyway, be it by a government or by local customs. There's also little evidence to show it is against the will of the majority, except for a few minor cases of British tradesmen refusing to comply and erroneously invoking "human rights". |
| The correct argument should be: "Imposing the metric system, or any system of measurement, on free people against their will is wrong."
Still, that does not make it right. The Government now has the power to seize your house at a fraction of it's worth and give it to a developer to make a pornoshop if they wanted to but that's about as 'right' as forcing people to adopt the metric system. "...except for a few minor cases of British tradesmen..." ...and the majority of US citizens. If it were a popular idea, it would have already happened in the US. |
|
| Metrification is not only unnecessary, but expensive. | This involves a one-time cost during the conversion process. How much is the ongoing cost of maintaining several standards, converting for international trade, and so forth? |
| "This involves a one-time cost during the conversion process." Um, NO! EVERY SINGLE HOUSE, EVERY SINGLE BUILDING, EVERY SINGLE BRIDGE and basically the ENTIRE INFRASTRUCTURE of the US has been made using Imperial pipes, bricks, windows, door, and general parts. The cost to convert to metric would be ENORMOUS (which is why Canada hasn't completely done it). The "one-time conversion" process would take centuries and cost HUGE amounts of money! | |
| ...but converting is not a "one-time cost" but an ongoing waste of money, brains, and time. The United States has been "converting" since 1975, and costs have been mounting. | The costs are only ongoing because the anti-metric forces drag out the process over a very extended length of time. |
| The Pro-metric crowd like to say "one-time cost" and flipantly ignore the facts. See my above answer | |
|
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 metres long; Jules Verne would never write 96,561 Kilometres 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 centimetres 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 kilometre in under 5 seconds. Oh well, if you give a proponent of the metric system 2.54 centimetres, he'll take 1.6093 kilometres. | However, there would be nothing wrong with the Indy 800, a 90 metre football field, 100,000km under the sea, and so on. There is nothing wrong, either, with non-round dimensions like 21 cm × 29.7 cm (the A4 standard sheet size) in the decimal system. Nothing forces you into changing the size of a football field, except, of course, that the size of the field is dictated by the rules of the sport.
Of course the units peck, league etc. are not in current usage in the UK or USA, and nobody has ever felt compelled to translate them to miles or ounces. Indeed, most English speakers are not aware of the "peck" as a unit, and take it to be a non-specific word meaning "a small amount". This illustrates the misunderstandings caused by inconsistant systems, in fact the peck at 16 pints is fairly large! (As a counter-counterargument, Webster's Dictionary lists a colloquial definition of a peck as "a large amount". Whom are you going to believe?) |
| That argument is used as a joke and I won't even bother with a retort (other than what I have already typed). | |
| There is no compelling reason to change the entrenched system that has worked for centuries on its own, and for decades alongside various versions of the metric system. If there was a valid cost benefit for business, all businesses would have changed to metric exclusively years ago. As this has not happened, and as there is no serious effort underway to make it happen, opponents of metrication argue that the minor benefits of metrication are offset by the initial cost and confusion of a large-scale conversion. | Claiming that a system that is more confusing and difficult to use has "worked" ignores the question of what works best. Also, it would be difficult for businesses to switch without "top-down" pressure, because the change needs to happen in a swift and discrete manner. |
| 1) The counter-argument completely ignores the main assertion of the argument.
2) "Claiming that a system that is more confusing and difficult to use..." that argument is a matter of opinion, I find it very difficult to measure EVERYTHING in mm (a common practice in engineering). 3) "ignores the question of what works best", again a subjective argument. I find that the Imperial system works best. |
|
| ...but confusion and difficulty are relative, and one could argue that the metric system is confusing because of all the converting between customary units of measurement and the metric system, and that multiplying or dividing by powers of ten to measure things is just as confusing. | But converting between other units should be a temporary phase, and multiplying/dividing by powers of ten is inherently easy because of our decimal number system. |
| Old argument, already addressed. | |
Similar arguments are used in the UK for retention of imperial units, though the argument that imperial measures are more "stable" is not used. This is probably due to the greater knowledge that there are different gallons, tons, pounds etc. used through the world.
See also: metrication
Are you sure a "real article" will not diverge out of control, too, and the same way the table of arguments did ?
- An exception to the above rules of thumb is Fahrenheit vs. Celsius, as Fahrenheit was not properly calibrated on its intended scale, and Celsius evenly divides temperature between the freezing and boiling point of water. (The scientific unit of temperature, Kelvin, is calibrated on an absolute scale.) However, Fahrenheit's higher resolution is more useful for describing air temperature.
Also, I don't understand the paragraph on Celsius vs Fahrenheit. Where are "the above rules of thumb" ? What means "Fahrenheit was not properly calibrated on its intended scale" ? What's the intended scale of Fahrenheit ? How did calibration fail ?
The argument However, Fahrenheit's higher resolution is more useful for describing air temperature is totally unsound. As regards to air temperature, Celsius suits me perfectly, no need for decimals, and I know when it's freezing. As regards to body temperature (looks like a better argument), Fahrenheit must use one decimal too, AFAICanGuess.
If we reintroduce arguments and counter-arguments like this, sure it will go out of control. I'm not convinced there is a need for an article on antimetrication when we have metrication.
-- FvdP 17:59 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)
Metric Time
I'm going to remove the recent comment:
Time metrication has also been implemented as the cost of replacing all clocks, watches, and timers would be vastly higher than changing any other unit.
because it is non-sensical.
(Aside from the fact it was probably meant to say "not been implemented"), as already explained, the metric system permits the usual set of units (days, hours) for everyday use. The many countries which use the metric system retain these units. Nobody is proposing the kilosecond etc.
--Trainspotter 16:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I added that sentence, I think it is useful in that it explains why nobody is proposing the kilosecond etc.- SimonP 16:41, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I think there is still a misunderstanding. Use of hour etc is not a sign of incomplete metrication, because the metric system already includes the minute, hour and day (see e.g. here).
- The economic cost of changing clocks is to some extent a side-issue. As far as I can tell, your reasoning seems to be:
- Full metrication demands kiloseconds etc
- But it costs too much
- So supposedly "metric" countries settle for an incomplete metrication which retains hours etc instead
- whereas I suggest that really it is:
- The metric system permits choice of e.g. hours or kiloseconds.
- Of these, people in fully-metric countries choose hours for everyday use, as more convenient because they divide exactly into a day. (Hence also e.g. measuring speeds in km/h, even though for scientific calculations m/s is generally used.)
- (And incidentally, yes, changing clocks to kiloseconds would also be expensive. But there is no reason to do so, anyway.)
- --Trainspotter 16:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)