2001-09-09 It seems from the link Nat provided, this guy's main beef is with using the word "times" when used describe something "less than". http://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/ I'm sorry, but I have no trouble understanding that when something is 5 times less than something else, that means the same thing as 0.2 or 20 %. If he and others have trouble, that is their problem. The one part that may be confusing to some is: .....Columnist Molly Ivins cites a congressional finding that Mexicans pay "102 percent less" than Americans pay for prescription drugs. How do they do that?..... Well, 102 % less, is the same as 1.02 times less. or 98 %, which really isn't that much less. ......Even a literate ignoramus can understand a plastic railway car that weighs half as much as a conventional steel car. It is the railway car that is "230 percent lighter" that baffles us. If we are to believe a reduction of 150 percent in teen-age pregnancies, how many teen-age pregnancies do we have? Fifty percent fewer than zero? Bad news for obstetricians........... Why is he baffled? 230 % lighter means 2.3 times lighter or 0.43 (43 %) of the weight. A reduction of 150 %, means it is reduced by 1.5 times or 0.67 or 67 % of a former count. I do agree with his assessment of using thousands of acres to describe areas of land. In his example, 2000 acres is made to sound big, but, when converted to sensible metric units, it sounds very small. 2000 acres is 800 ha, which is 100 m x 8 m, which is about 6 times narrower then a football field. His article is really an expression of his own ignorance. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, 2001-09-09 12:10 Subject: [USMA:15153] Fwd: Innumerate Journalists > I have just posted the following email to James J. Kilpatrick, with > information copies to the AP Wire ("feedback") and the editor of our > local newspaper. > > Jim > > Dear Mr. Kilpatrick, > > The column of yours that was posted in today's Charleston Post and > Courier was right on the money. Writers (and here I would highlight > journalists) are an innumerate lot. Perhaps for that reason they tend > to be rather technophobic and ignorant of the sciences as well, but > that's not the issue I raise here. > > One of the sad repercussions of this innumeracy is that journalists > seem to be significantly more antimetric than the average American. As > owners of the Daily Pulp(it) they have an unfair advantage in the war > of words in this skirmish in which our society is involved--the battle > to move towards using the universal meter, despite our federal > government's parochial foot-dragging in metricating our country. > > Even the staff writers at Associated Press routinely fail to heed the > advice given in the AP Stylebook on using metric units in their > articles. Thus our daily, weekly, and monthly journals tend to abrogate > their implied Jeffersonian contract to educate and inform the > citizenry. Their practices would leave Americans believing that the > metric system is a "European thing" or only for scientists, instead of > being the system of measurement used by 95 % of the world's people in > their everyday lives. > > You might be interested in an online reference that our federal > government does provide for the media. > "Metric Style Guide for the Media" (NIST) > http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/200/202/metrsty3.htm > If you review this small online pamphlet, you will quickly see many > egregious errors in the feeble attempts that journalists do make from > time to time to use the SI, "the modern metric system". Perhaps this > will provide you with some inspiration for a future column. Should you > feel inclined to venture further into this topic, I immodestly > recommend my pages, indexed at > http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj/SIguidelines.htm > Some of those sail forth into non-English waters, by the way, which is > useful for those who travel outside the country. > > As an aside, downtown Charleston has not yet slipped beneath the waves, > though we worry about that in hard rains. We miss having you here in > town. Fortunately, we are still provided with your excellent columns. > > best regards, > Jim Frysinger > > p.s.- I am eager to see yet another column on the phenomenon I call > "only the lonely", the misplacement of "only" in written and spoken > sentences. For example, here is a typical response by a journalist, > challenged for avoiding the use of metric units in a news article > regarding events in another country: "Americans only understand > non-metric units." (The journalist also suffers from ethnocentrism in > believing all Americans are as innumerate and as non-metric as > journalists are.) > > -- > James R. Frysinger University/College of Charleston > 10 Captiva Row Dept. of Physics and Astronomy > Charleston, SC 29407 66 George Street > 843.225.0805 Charleston, SC 29424 > http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cert. Adv. Metrication Specialist 843.953.7644 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > James R. Frysinger University/College of Charleston > 10 Captiva Row Dept. of Physics and Astronomy > Charleston, SC 29407 66 George Street > 843.225.0805 Charleston, SC 29424 > http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cert. Adv. Metrication Specialist 843.953.7644 >
