On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:35:54 David Owen wrote: >Marcus: I think metric purists are too infatuated by the possibility of >sorting all human activity into the smallest possible number of categories. >All the absurdly anachronistic measurement units that you despise arose to >meet human needs.
I have never denied that the archaic ifp system had its merits. However, for crying out loud, this is the 3rd millennium! There is absolutely no more reason for the existence of this mediocrity of associating sizes of things to human parameters. The whole philosophy of measuring things using human parts is utterly *wrong*! We have come a long way towards understanding metrology. Using foot, palms, inches, hands (a HUGE SIC!!!) and whatever other stuff there is out there is like driving a bouncing Betty and a modern Formula 1 Ferrari! The difference is so huge that even the thought of using such antiqued stuff should make people blush with shame! (Honestly! I would!!!). So, I'm really sorry if I can't shed one picoliter of tear in favor of this thing! > Not all of those human needs have gone away, and it is >self-defeating for metric evangelists to pretend they don't exist. ?? And where is it that SI would not fill 'human needs'??? Despite its flaws, the SI is *still* the best tool around for undertaking issues involving measurements. > There's >a sort of beautiful symmetry to the way metric units nest together in >orderly decimal columns and rows, but there are many applications for which >the metric system is less than ideally suited. A resounding and very loud **NO**, there simply isn't!!! So what if sizewise the meter as a size would not be ideal for certain applications? The concept of creating "ideal" sizes depending on the application is a HUGE MISTAKE, David! That's what got the ifp system into trouble. We don't NEED to do this. This is completely counterproductive and a very flawed approach when it comes to dealing with the subject of measurements. Anybody who studies the field of metrology and understands what is involved in developing a system of units would arrive at the same conclusion. Please, note that it CAN'T be any other way. Otherwise, a system of measurements would not be the domain of science, but art!!! Now, the beauty of the SI system is that it has the backing of scientific research and sound theory behind it. For instance, is the meter too big? Fine, use the cm, or dm, or mm, whatever prefix would come closest to serving well the application in question. Now, try that with a mediocre "system" like ifp which is thoroughly based on using "convenient" sizes for certain applications. The end result? Chaos! Because one would have to come up with a myriad of different sizes to suit every application under the sun, which is a complete absurdity!!! Now, to your example below. > In carpentry, for example, a >metric tape measure is in many ways harder to use than a nasty old American >one: I ***v-e-h-e-m-e-n-t-l-y, wholeheartedly*** disagree!!!!! IMHO there is absolutely NOTHING desirable in this silly ifp tape whatsoever! It's cluttered with subdivisions which are confusing, ill-devised and that serve for nothing (except if you loooove to do math with idiotic fractions...)! I conducted a simple experiment with several people here, and I'm talking about ordinary folks, those who are NOT of the profession. The result? I've got near unanimous agreement from people who claimed that using and reading a metric tape was far easier and simpler to deal with than the ifp counterpart. Why? Here is a sample of the opinions I've got: - It's hard to understand how the subdivisions in an ifp tape work. We usually have difficulty identifying what's 3/4 or 7/16 or whatever. If we were to ever conduct simple math operations involving measured values we would be in trouble because we would have to use fractions to do it. There is nothing of the kind with a metric tape! - Reading a metric tape is a lot faster for us. It's simple, direct, there is little confusion about where the 3 or 2 or 7 mm marks are. In case you're in doubt, just count the ticks! It's that simple! However, the fact that there are five of them in a small subdivision makes identifying any of these almost instantaneous. Example? 3 is closer to 5, grab the outside tick to the left of it. 2? It's evidently closer to the 0 mark, do likewise to the other side, closest to it. And so it goes. With the ifp tape, how the heck am I supposed to distinguish between, say, 3/4 and 11/16??? How do I "count" with this thing??? The above, mind you, are *real* testimonies of people concerning the use of these tapes. Now, evidently, if you talk about professionals, being used to using these instruments they'd probably face much less difficulty. But, please remember, that it's the *LAYMAN'S* opinion that should settle the score about concepts such as usability, simplicity, ease of use, etc. I've grown up with the metric system and it was only much later that I had to deal with the ifp stuff, and I'll be honest and blunt with you (this happened **before** I was "awakened" to this problem and became a metric activist!): it's simply attrocious! I would NEVER want this burden for anybody, not even for my worst enemy! The other day we've received the visit of a *professional* in carpentry who has years and years of experience doing measurements and all. His testimony, which was completely "uncoached" (I didn't influence him in any way whatsoever) was very enlightening. He was appalled at the quality level of our construction industry in North America. Despite having years of experience using feet, inches and the likes, he completely despises this system and can never get used to using it. Back in the Tcheck republic he came from years and years ago he never had the kinds of difficulties he now has with what he himself called "this crazy incomprehensible mix of feet, inches and yards" that we have over here! 'Nough said!... ;-) More below. > a millimeter is smaller than the tip of a builder's pencil and narrower >than the blade of a saw, So what? I would never sacrifice the added accuracy afforded by the mm compared to the 1/8 of an inch that most ifp tapes have. If the saw's blade is thicker than a mm, fine, discount its size from the final piece and presto, no big deal! > and the closely packed, uniform gradations on the >tape are difficult to distinguish visually except in bundles of five, ??? I'm sorry, but the above is completely against the experience I've had as I've described above. I don't recall hearing from *anybody* that this was such a difficulty. Quite the contrary actually. Perhaps you, personally, suffer from some personal visual acuity difficulty or something (no offense intended, please). It's the *distinction* between divisions that showed to be paramount in the testimonies I've described above. In other words, how to *distinguish* (or *identify*) between fractions when reading a certain measurement on paper and relating it to the physical tape that was behind most of the woes that people had when dealing with ifp tapes! > and >there are no intermediate units between the centimeter and the meter. ? I beg your pardon? What do you mean? Honestly? Metric tapes are usually very simply divided up. The size of the smallest tick is mm, a group of 10 of these is usually easily printed as either 1 (cm) or 10 (mm), depending on the design of the tape. To simplify reading the number of ticks you have a bigger tick for the 5 mm mark. Once you have 100 (cm) or 1000 of these (mm) you have the meter. There is no need to clutter it with decimeters. Each meter usually is printed with a bigger font for it, and in red. Anyone with simple brains can identify ANY value on paper and easily "find" it in the tape. So, I'm sorry, but you totally lost me here. As a >tool, it doesn't work as well, no matter how elegantly simple it may seem in >theory, and no matter how easy it may be to convert the dimensions of >building materials from one system to the other. > ? I disagree. I have years of experience doing measurements for all sorts of applications using *both* tapes. But after so much frustration with the ifp one I simply sent mine to the garbage bin and NEVER looked back! I want NOTHING to do with this mediocre piece of trash EVER in my life! When I contracted people out to finish my basement I insisted on getting people who would work in metric (it was very tough, living in Canada and all...). I was unfortunately not too successful in getting everyone I needed it, but after the job was done I was able, BTW, to win one convert whose testimony warmed my heart, as he said to me and my wife: "You know what? I actualy liked dealing with metric measurements and I honestly wished our folks here gave it a try. I was glad I didn't have to figure out things in fractions and all, but do just simple adding arithmetic to get the numbers I needed"... Again, this testimony was completely uncalled for and voluntarily given, mind you!!! We didn't force him to "like" metric, we just allowed facts to do their work! ;-) One other incident worth mentioning was the lousy type of work I was getting from another pair of workers who unfortunately got everything wrong (despite my doing the informal conversions for them!... Sigh...) and if I hadn't intervened to correct the situation in time I'd have serious grievances to fix later on as the space I had was very tight and did not allow or had room for ANY small mistakes! >Some members of this group are annoyed by the perseverance of "Babylonian" >clocks, but the truth is that the world's system of measuring time is >already everything the metric system has ever dreamed of being: it's >universally used and universally understood, and it requires next to no >translation from culture to culture, and it's imprinted so deeply in human >consciousness that even young children can mentally replicate it -- for >example, by counting "Mississippi"s. So what? It's not because everyone knows it and how to use it that makes it *technically* superior to a metric version of it, is it?!!! > Changing the second's length might >quell the annoyance of theoretical purists, but it would create global >chaos. Perhaps, granted. But it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons. I'd like to believe that the pros would outweigh the cons **in spite of its present universality**! > The "metric second" is an extreme example of theoretical rigidity, ? Why would that be, David? If *technically* speaking it's been proven that a decimal system is superior, why would you call this "rigidity" if this were just a scientific fact? Science doesn't lie, my friend. Facts are facts... >but the same urge for consistency at any cost is often evident among less >doctrinaire metric advocates, who seldom acknowledge that there possibly >could be any situation in which coldly logical metric units work less well >than quirkier alternatives. David Owen >... David, I'm yet to see or hear ANY reasonable justification for the perpetuation of alternative systems of measurements to SI. Experience and theory have been proving over and over and over again (and it can't be otherwise!) that it IS worth going through the trouble of metrication/conversion. The long run benefits of using an unquestionable superior and modern system far outweigh the seemingly (but *wrong*) comfortable, "familiar" use of 'quirkier' alternatives! I'm sorry, but the burden of proof to the contrary is on YOUR shoulders, not ours... Regards, Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
