Dear Joe,
People are, and have always been comfortable with mountain heights - up to
29,012 feet, flight details that includes heights such as 35,000 feet, and
ocean depths such as 20,000 Leagues.
To say that they are now uncomfortable with large numbers (because they are
associated with SI) is an obvious, ill-considered untruth, and should be
treated as such.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin CAMS
Geelong, Australia
on 2001-03-03 06.36, Joseph B. Reid at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
>
