On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:44:40 Jim Elwell wrote: ... >>?? What is a measurement system' if not *science*, Jim??? You're missing >>the fundamental point here that IT IS, period!!! > >You original response said that goons with guns do not "have the power to >change science," and you gave gravity as an example. I certainly agree -- >neither laws nor those enforcing them can change gravity, or the value of >pi, or any other fundamental aspect of the universe. > Excellent. I'm glad you agreed this much.
>They certainly CAN, however, force people to use whatever measurement >system those in power should choose, whether it be SI metric, another >version of metric (e.g., a meter is defined as the height of my dog), or >whatever. The SI metric system is hardly a fundamental property of the >universe. > Sorry, but I can't agree with you. True the issue of forcing people to use whatever system'' may exist. But who is (or should be) "they"??? I'm volunteering that this should be competent, skillful, knowledge people IN THE AREA OF METROLOGY. Individuals whose professional lives are dedicated to this specific issue. We, as society, have learned to trust the judgment of such contributors in many facets of our lives. We use their cars, automobiles, computers, phones and many, many other products. Why not extend this to the issue of system of units??? Darn it! Why allow ignorant, misguided people to *dictate* how progress in this area should proceed? IMHO this is a HUGE mistake! If you happen to disagree with the direction these guys are taking, fine, discuss this with them, make your voice heard, make a proposal, etc, etc. But, by golly, DO NOT unduly interfere with their work! That is my contention. And I'd like to believe that it's a VERY reasonable one. So, in essence, let people do their jobs in the way they have been trained to do. Once you convince people of the merit of this approach you completely disarm them (my 2-cents worth, anyhow!). And just to complete the thought. Measurements AND units ARE fundamental properties of the universe indeed! There are correct and rigorous procedures to be followed to gather information on physical properties of nature, Jim. Again, it's the realm of scientists to not only study and understand nature, but also to provide with the means to use such understanding for practical purposes for society. Otherwise, the stating of things like E=mc2, or E=0.5mv2, or whatever are completely lost, since these laws of nature can ONLY be verified if instruments are used to test such laws and that such measurements follow rigorous definitions. Think about it and I hope you'll understand where I'm coming from. In essence/summary, it's useless to even use the hideous inch crap if this stupid unit is not rigorously "nailed". Whatever "system" one uses it's paramount that such units be tied to *scientific work*. And who has that responsibility? Again, we go back to scientists and professionals in metrology! Therefore, such discretion is NOT to be used by *just anyone* and even recognized in society. Again, this WHOLE thing belongs in the hands of these specialized individuals, *period*! You like it or not, BTW. >And, if you are unwilling to use force, i.e., a cop pointing a gun at a >citizen, to enforce laws, then those laws are nothing but recommendations. >Trying to hide "force" behind phrases like "regulations" or "empowering >authority" or being "subject to ... standards bodies" does not change that >fact. >... ? Jim, I don't think anyone in society would argue about the *necessity* of certain regulations. So much so that most simply comply with such policies. True, I'm not naive to think that this is always the case, but there is *excellent* case that such MUST exist. Now, how are these "enforced"? I'm not sure policing is the means to achieve that, unless as last resort. Therefore, I'm sorry, but I think you're being a little melodramatic here. >What you, and many on this forum, are willing to do is to use these same >cops to enforce the measurement system you happen to prefer. NO! Not exactly. Enforcement of measurement systems should be done via regulatory bodies like with many other endeavors in society. I hardly think that many would be concerned with how "not complying" would be dealt with. Certainly when society creates such mechanisms they do it *mostly* because there is a reason for them to do so. Sure, there is the aspect of enforcement, but such falls in the mainstream of things, i.e. in accordance with how failure to comply with them should be addressed. And on this perhaps there is merit to discuss whether it should fall on the civil or criminal code, for instance. > I would be the >first to admit that it is a better measurement system than what the USA >mostly uses, but it is hardly perfect and hardly a justification for this >type of abuse of state power. > The point is though, Jim, that this is not a question of 'abuse of state power', but rather to put this power in the hands of whom it belongs, that's all. If you want to discuss at what level of legislative code this should be placed, fine. Let's have a go at that aspect of the debate then. I have no problem with that. But from a fundamental point-of-view it only makes sense to proceed on this this way, IMHO. ... >Why do you think the Metric Martyr types are just going to give up their >battle? They will give up, as the guy in England did, when the cops haul >them off to jail. > Then I assume that from your perspective the legislative approach for this issue should belong in the criminal code. Am I reading you right? Well... I'm not sure about that. I'd probably prefer it to be placed in the civil code instead, even if this would mean putting up with these idiots. Slap them with fines, take away their business licenses, etc. These should be enough to wear down even the biggest hardliner, IMHO. But then again, I haven't given this much thought yet, so I may revise my position if you convince me otherwise. >As to "It's the law!," all I can say is "so what?" We live in a world with >a billion laws, and everyone of us breaks some law or other every day. And >we already know there are people who will resist metrication laws, and will >abide only when forced to do so. > ? I'm somewhat... amazed by your statement above, my dear friend, and I sincerely hope I'm not misinterpreting it, but... Well... I can only speak for myself and MY position is to obey the law and the order even if I don't like it. As a Christian I am bound to this position. We are instructed by our meek Savior to behave in this way. Therefore, you won't find this guy here doing much in terms of "breaking the rules"... I'll shout, lobby, protest, yell, whatever, but I will not willfully do the exact opposite of what my conscience and cause tell me. >... >No one but scientists have had anything to do with defining fundamental >units of measure for many years. What you are trying to accomplish here is >not science, it is political and economic control. > ? I'm satisfied that you've acknowledged that it's indeed been the responsibility and work of scientists to deal with the issue of system of units. However, if you grant me this much I'm somewhat taken aback that you'd not expect that power and control should not ultimately rest in *their* hands! If you want to build a house, who would you call? Construction people. If you want to sue someone, who should you hire? lawyers. If you want to use a vehicle for transportation, who would you expect would provide the technical means? Engineers. Do you know what I mean? Every sector of society has something to contribute *in their own specialty*. Therefore, it only makes sense that these professionals be allowed to be "in the driver's seat", is it not? >Having scientists declare what units people can or cannot use is no better >than letting politicians do so. Scientists are experts at science, and, on >the whole, are pretty ignorant of politics, political philosophies, >philosophies of freedom, business strategy, practical business >considerations, etc. They may know which units are better from a scientific >standpoint, but that is NOT the same as which ones are better when >considering such things as tradition, infrastructure, business processes, etc. > That's where IMHO you unfortunately err in your assumptions, Jim. I, as an engineer, have been trained *not only* in technical matters dealing with my profession, but ALSO on other subjects that matter to the exercise of that profession, like, laws, regulations, ethics, business administration, etc. Your assumption that these specialized scientists would ONLY understand about the technical aspects involved in this endeavor is somewhat... inaccurate. It is *also* part of their responsibility that they come up with a product that would serve society well in all its diversity and challenges. Please, just read the metric motto again, for the first time, to realize that: "le systeme metrique, a tout le temps, a touts les peuples"! If your argumentation is that they haven't been doing their job right and taking into consideration issues of 'tradition, infrastructure, business processes, strategy, political reality', etc, as you put it, then that's a different discussion. However, I'd like to believe that they HAVE addressed if not all, most of it! With any endeavor of this magnitude it is bound to have pros and cons. But if the pros outweigh the cons by far (which is what I believe is undeniably, unquestionably the case here with the SI system), then they've done their part. >I happen to have a number of engineers at my company with advanced degrees. >They are very bright people. Are they qualified to make substantive >business decisions, such as deciding if and when we should change our >measurement systems? Hardly! > Agreed. But the folks behind the SI system go way beyond just their technical expertises, Jim. Have you taken the time to read about the qualifications of these individuals? You would be surprised at the diversity and pool of talent and expertise behind an organization such as BIPM! And it's people from *all over the world*, Jim. Clearly one can give them some credit for doing something right?... ;-) Besides, I'm yet to find any reasonable *truly* effective justification for NOT going metric yet! All this monkeying around about "where economically feasible", bla-bla-bla is all smoke in the mirror, my friend. With a little bit of time and effort it shouldn't be difficult to show that **in the long run** going metric is actually the ONLY way to go! And this, *regardless of the environment*! It's just a pity that some business people try to distort business principles to justify their inaction AND allow their personal preferences and bias dictate their decisions (and that is an unfortunate fact)! While some of their argumentations may have bearing and merit, OVERALL they unfortunately fail a closer scrutiny. >>... I'm in essence addressing this issue from a fundamental philosophical >>point-of-view which I feel even you would be forced to agree! ;-) > >heh, heh, heh ... got a chuckle out of your last three words there! > Well... I was merely alluding to the fact that technically a system of units IS the realm of science after all, and ONLY of science. >However, sorry to disappoint you, Marcus. I really feel that your >philosophical approach is aimed at avoiding the conflict between force and >individual freedom. I think that is impossible, as I see them as inherently >in conflict. > That is because you unfortunately seem to get stuck (yet...) about this *having* to be a choice between 'force and freedom'. I guess and felt we've sort of agreed this much. Not that you agreed with my position that these do not necessarily clash, but that if I'm right, your justifications for opposition would be significantly addressed and at least greatly mitigated. In other words, I *still* sustain that they are NOT in conflict, especially if you allow the power over this to be handed to those where it belongs. >You will get the last word on this Marcus, as I leave on another trip >tomorrow and will have time to read your reply, but probably not to >respond. Since we have run this track numerous times, I am sure most won't >mind seeing this thread die out after your response. >... That's ok, Jim. I understand. But it's always great to debate with you. You're a challenging thoughtful individual. I'll just continue at working on trying to address your concerns as much as possible. I even thought I had a shot at this with this approach, but... Oh, well... I'm not giving up on this one yet... :-) Take care and have a nice trip. Please return safely. God bless. Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
