Gustaf Sjöberg reported in 11489:
>The text below comes from bwmaonline.com.
>They have some interesting opininons about metric quantities and their
>disadvatages, and I have to say that I partly agree with them.
>This is an addition to the old deci - centi - discussion. It is obvious
>that pro-metric people stab theirselves in the back when they say that
>1000-multiples should be the only allowed, and which they unfortunately
>still are.
>
>...
>The experience of metric demonstrates that it provides anything but
>understandable information. This is
> owing largely to the abstract nature of metric units:
>
> Metrication results in huge numbers on food
>packaging (185g, 375g, 425g, 440g, etc). This vast
> increase in the size of numbers occurs because
>metric units are much smaller than customary
> units; 28 grams to one ounce, over 450 grams to
>one pound, 568 millilitres to one pint, and so
> forth.
> <snip>
>
> Metric fails to produce consistent or easily
>understood sizing scales. Unlike the 16oz pound that is
> geared to multiples of two, the kilogram cannot
>comfortably accommodate successive halving.
> Thus, while some metric packaging builds up as
>100g, 200g, 400g, etc, this will not integrate with
> one kilogram meaning that other packaging
>progresses as 125g, 250g, 500g, etc. Other packaging
> uses 75g, 150g, 300g, etc while others still use
>110g, 220g, 330g, 440g, etc. A large variety of
> packaged foods has no identifiable sizing scale at
>all, for example, tomato ketchup and brown
> sauce.
>
>
>The above factors have contributed to a general failure of metric units
>to find common acceptance by British people for food and
>drink packaging. Technically, metric indicates quantity as accurately as
>the
>customary system, but it fails to convey meaning or value. Whereas six
>ounces of cheese actually sounds
> like a quantity of cheese, 180g of cheese is just a very large number.
The British system was developed when ordinary people could only count to
twenty, and could not multiply and divide. John Napier tried to develop
aids for multiplication. That is why there is a chain of units, each
related to the next larger by a factor of 20 or less.
In the 18th century it was assumed that ordinary folk could do arithmetic
and the metric system was based on this assumption. People can understand
prices with many digits, why not measures? I suspect the above objection
to metric is rooted in conservatism and chauvinism
Joseph B. Reid
17 Glebe Road West
Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
