Carl, despite what I perceived to be a somewhat rude response from you (you wrote: '...to fit your pet (???) interests') I won't "return the favor", so to speak...
However, for the sake of clarification (since you did misrepresent what I meant with my last post) I'm sorry but I will HAVE to respond, despite your plea for me not to! Please see, consider and reflect on my response below. Thanks. On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:40:51 Carl Sorenson wrote: >I find it very ironic that Marcus is extremely pessimistic about metrication >in the U.S., yet he thinks we should revamp SI itself. > ?? Whoa, whoa! Slow down here, please! First of all, this is not about being 'pessimistic', but rather *realistic*! The US has been monkeying around this issue for decades, pestering everybody else with its stupid WOMBAT units, stifling EVERY effort by the EU, for instance, among other things, to get a truly global 'system' accepted (discussions of the word 'system' that I made aside, please!). Progress has been extremely scant if at all. People can AT BEST only recognize that it's been happening in drips and drops with NO real proof in the fields that count, i.e. those strongly remaining entrenched in ifp territory (aviation, construction, etc). So, I'm merely being quite blunt about it. In other words, years and years with no appreciable progress = NO reason to be upbeat about metrication REALLY happening anytime soon, at least in MY dictionary! Secondly, I didn't say (and please PROVE me by showing ANY quote of mine to that effect!) 'we should revamp SI itself'! What I meant was that **AS A FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE**, the ***I-S-S-U-E itself*** of a *system of units* should be PROPERLY dealt with, i.e. FROM THE GROUND UP! Please notice that my post originated as a response to Pat's in which he explored a bit of history of how systems of units developed. I just picked it up FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE to claim simply the following: if metrology had been treated from the start and/or evolved into a TRUE field of study, like math or physics, we should not have SO MUCH TROUBLE implementing it ANYWHERE! If this topic were not so surrounded and treated pettilly as a political puppet we would not be even discussing metrication here! Please, just think about it! Does anybody discuss whether 2+2 is 4? Alas, if metrology were treated the same way, dogs could bark all they wanted, a meter would be a meter would be a meter, NO DEBATE!!! I then commented that the SI could serve as a TOOL or end result of this effort, **provided it followed this fundamental conceptual work I was alluding to**. In other words, the SI system could be just like a possible response for a "system" that would be metrologically sound! ;-) In other words, the SI would have to suffer some "corrections" to be in harmony with the FIELD OF METROLOGY. Fundamental flaws like prefix usage inconsistencies, fundamental units being prefixed, lack of more prefixes, etc, etc, etc, would have to be fixed BEFORE these two could be regarded as so intimately intertwined that mentioning metrology would automatically mean SI! Do you understand what I mean now, Carl? So, in essence, what I was talking about was sort of a *process* that should have developed quite differently from how it actually evolved in history! Evidently history can't be changed. However, it would be nice if FINALLY some entity decided to focus on this this way. More on this below. >Hmm. We have trouble changing 4% of the world to be in line with the other >96%, but he thinks we should change SI and get everyone to adopt a new >system that 0% of the world uses. I'll pass on that endeavor. > ? As I hope I explained above you totally misunderstood the nature of my post! The SI system is actually VERY close to something I'd envision would be THE ULTIMATE RESULT of a HYPOTHETICAL FIELD OF STUDY called 'metrology'!!! Unfortunately we went about this issue of measurements all wrong throughout history IMHO. It is like as if we had built an edifice with bricks and pieces haphazardly without making necessary plans, so to speak, when the CORRECT way of going about this SHOULD be to create a field of study to address this properly AND THEN come up with a system that would FULFILL its scientific tenets/framework! We've inherited a collection of units of measurement within what we called a "system" without due regard to PROCESS!!! Let me volunteer the subject of Management Science as a strong example of what I mean should have happened! Mathematical tools that are now used in the profession of Business Administration have now been categorized as BELONGING to this field of study! BUT notice that the foundation of this HAS BEEN RIGOROUSLY worked out, so that NOW 'new tools/applications/etc' can be developed on very solid ground/foundation. There is NO POLITICS involved in such issues as it rightfully BELONGS DEFINITIVELY in the realm of science. I just humbly submit that someone somehow should have done EXACTLY the same thing with this thing! Finally, my wrap up below, please. >Carl > >P.S. Please do not respond to this by sending more postings about how utopic >the world would be if we could just change SI to fit your pet interests. >We've been over that before. I was just pointing out an inconsistency. And >yes, I know that "utopic" is not in the dictionary (at least mine). I took >the liberty to invent it. >... I don't think I was been inconsistent in any way, but rather offering an opinion on the evolution of systems that I strongly feel should have been rectified long time ago. Actually I even feel that we can STILL salvage it by creating such 'field' I alluded to and get the SI to CONFORM to it, scientifically, rigorously, so that there would be NO DEBATE anymore EVER! This would evidently involve taking steps to get this thing out of political hands by declaring it of the domain of science and therefore NOT subject ANYMORE to petty decisions by anyone, anywhere! BTW, I like your word utopic, except that I don't honestly believe there is anything 'utopic' about this idea of mine. Consider it as a clever way to get 'metrication' implemented "by the back door" or something. If people wanted to dispute this they'd have to face *scientists* and NOT politicians. They'd have to submit SCIENTIFIC PAPERS to substantiate their position as to why somthing as ludicrous as WOMBAT would deserve to be called metrological! Please, look at the beauty of this proposal. Now, one would have to "prove" that WOMBAT is 'coherent', for example, or 'decimal', or 'flexible', etc! ;-) WOMBAT would stop dead at its tracks! For once and for all, in sheer disgrace! I'm sorry, but I'd enjoy every moment of it! :-) Cheers, Marcus PS: No hard feelings here, pal! :-) ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
