On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 09:15:00 Jim Elwell wrote: ... >Don't blow a gasket here Marcus. I think that Joe was just alluding to the >fact that most list members see metric as being more rational and >systematic than alternatives,
Jim, I don't think so, my friend. His message was a personal judgment of my position. It suffices for anyone to simply read his first sentence to see that! Therefore, I'm sorry, but I had to react and quite strongly to try to set the record straight and state my true position. > but most also know that it is hardly a an >ideal or perfect system, or something where "principles" are involved. It's obvious from the several discussions in which I've participated here that I do agree that the SI system is not a 'perfect system'. That was hardly the point! The fact is that despite its flaws, this system is on *sound principles of science*, Jim!! And THAT is what matters! Therefore, I strongly feel it does deserve to be defended on grounds of principle, yes. Nonetheless I'd feel even more strongly about it if it fixed its irritating flaws like its tolerance towards the current time framework, the incoherence with the use of prefixes (capital vs small letter), the name of the kilogram and a few other things. But overall ifp vs Si is like wine vs water!!! >Metric just happens to be better than alternatives that humans have tried. > Nah, it's much more than that, it's bringing the issue of a *system of units of measurements* to new grounds! A lot more is at stake than just coming up with units that represent physical properties being measured. There is an entire *science* behind this exercise, Jim, something we call "metrology"! And it's just unfortunate that BIPM is holding back on the continued progress of the SI construct by refusing to consider necessary improvements in its *framework itself*! What can I say?... :-S >And, as your post evidences, you see it as far more a matter of principle. Indeed, also because units of measurement should be treated as no less! Alas, there is a "correct" way and a "wrong" way when it comes to doing things like this. Science evolves evidently though and what we may now perceive to be "correct" may not be as much IF something BETTER comes about. So, in essence, again, I don't think we're disagreeing here, Jim. But please understand that it should be our responsibility to "be up to date" or in tandem with science developments WHEN a direction to be followed is clear. And on this the ifp is TOTALLY at odds with the best science there is on the subject of metrology. >Joe just used a bit stronger word when he said "moral." I don't think he >was trying to distort or put words in your mouth. > I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if it were not for previous episodes of similar caliber. But, since it's YOU who is "asking", I'll refrain from adding more to this controversy. ;-) >I certainly don't claim to speak for any other list members, but I suspect >more than a few would agree with me when I say that metrication is not even >an issue of principle. It is an issue of efficiency -- metric works easier >and has less room for errors and is more widely accepted than other systems >of measure. No disagreement here! If you're not prepared to go the extra distance and tie this to the 'principle' argument I tried to clarify, fine. I'll respect that. However, I hope that at least I made a strong case for the use of the word 'principle' I was referring to. > If there is any principle involved, it is economic efficiency. >... Indeed! I'm glad you've mentioned it since you demonstrated that you picked up the spirit of my use of the word principle. 'Economic efficiency' is albeit just ONE aspect in the whole scenario of 'principles' surrounding the discussion around metrology, Jim! Way to go! Best regards, my dear friend. Marcus ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
