Dear John and All,
Thanks for the article. I was most interested in the content.
I have interspersed some remarks.
on 2001-03-12 07.30, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2001-03-11
>
> Please find attached a Wall Street Journal article (decline.doc) concerning
> the decline and fall of British public services. The article does not
> directly deal with metrication, in fact never mentions it, but exposes the
> high degree of illiteracy in British adult life. It points out that "A 1999
> study found that one in five British adults can not count their change".
These figures are frightening, but I fear they are not confined to England.
I recall similar studies - with similar results in Australia - some years
ago. I'll see if I can trace any details. From memory the levels tested
were:
1 Could you count your change
2 Could you add the prices of three items in a restaurant to find how much
your bill would be.
3 Could you add 10 % for a tip - or subtract a 10 % discount.
And that was it. The researchers found that it was too hard to use more
difficult questions than these because the people who could answer them were
too scarce.
This issue of numeracy exists. It is widespread, and it is something that
metricists must consider in any conversion campaign.
> This being the case, no wonder people can't measure. Learning metric in
> schools doesn't guarantee it will be remembered or used in life, nor is
> there any proof that choosing or spouting off imperial units means one knows
> them well enough to work in them or give correct answers when asked.
Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more.
> Simplified forms of Imperial developed over time primarily for the ignorant,
> illiterate, innumerate and unintelligent masses. Is it no wonder that with
> the chaos in British institutions of learning, the public prefers these old
> units!
I don't think this is right. They don't 'prefer these old units'; they
simply don't have the numeracy to consider the issue in any reasoned way.
The point is that the old measures are socially accepted by their peers who
are also innumerate. A key point is that an innumerate person knows from
personal experience how difficult it is for her or him to change their
minds. The key is not rational - they simply know that they don't want to
change. In change there is danger.
> I wonder how many people would feel ashamed if they realised that imperial
> is an hodge-podge of units for lowest dregs of society. The only use of
> these units by the people at the top is a means to cheat the people at the
> bottom. But, because of their choice to be ignorant, they don't see it.
Granted the opportunities for exploitation are obvious; and sharp traders
know it. I'm not sure though if your last assertion is correct. Do you
really think that someone sits themselves down and then deliberately chooses
to be ignorant.
BTW Did you notice that Marc Champion used figures such as 103.7 G$ on three
occasions and the word billion on one other occasion. Throughout he placed
the unit symbol '$' after the numbers. This is interesting as I believe that
the use of SI prefixes for money is a thin edge of a wedge to promote SI in
the financial community.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin CAMS
Geelong, Australia
