Pat Naughtin wrote in 11455 >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. I quite agree. MY message was >> 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 You were replying to Gustaf Sjöberg who was quoting bwmaonline.com. >>> 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. Joseph B. Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
