Dear All, I have combined two postings [USMA:27546] and [USMA: 27547] and I have interspersed some remarks.
For those of you who have not been following this issue, this is a long posting. > Dear Ezra, > > While I consider the contributions by our valued member Pat to be > thought-provoking and worthy of our consideration it is unfortunately by no > means "the last word". > > There are several aspects that MUST be taken into consideration when > discussing this issue (and I have already vehicled quite a few of them here in > this forum). But we should focus on the two most important ones: > > 1) Ease of use, and > 2) Accuracy I agree, and I think that this is why millimetres are so successful when and where they are used; millimetres are successful because they are easy to use and they are accurate. > Taking the above aspects into account forces me to side with the UKMA on this. I do not 'take sides' on this issue. My support for millimetres is not based on intellectual arguments; nor are they based on the sorts of supposition we often see from anti-metric groups. My support for millimetres is simply, and I believe soundly, based on my observations of metrication in Australia (with some observations from New Zealand and South Africa). I have been fortunate in that I have worked in a wide variety of positions in education, government and industry. > This does not detract from my believing that Pat's arguments also have merits, > mind you! Remember, I am not providing arguments � I am reporting observations � and trying to give some analysis of them with the view of making practical recommendations on how to conduct a change to metric. > However, these 2 aspects are too important to pass up when it comes > to deriving *policies for general use* of the metric system, which is what I > think UKMA is all about. > > Again I must reinforce the concept that for someone to make a decision on what > system to use an individual must make that choice on the basis of its > user-friendliness (among other things evidently). My recommendation is that an individual must make their decision on what works, as this is the ultimate guide to what is 'simple' and what is not. Suppose that 'an individual must make that choice' observes that the use of millimetres leads to a smooth and rapid transition to metric measures and that the choice of centimetres leads to a confused, bitterly fought, and extremely slow metrication, then it would be a courageous person who would then rely on the power of his conjecture and choose centimetres. > Having said that I cannot > shake the conviction (or blame one) that would prefer to deal with only 2 > digits as opposed to 3 most of the time, especially if accuracy allows him/her > to. And I've cited one of my professions (pilot) as a strong argument in > favor of that position. This is an example of the point that I just made. A particular habit has developed in flying circles and a heap of jargon is developed and based on this (as happens in many (most) trades and professions). It is drawing a long bow to then use the evidence of the current practice to conjecture that the original transition to metric was smooth and rapid and that the use of 2 digits should (ipso facto) be transferred to all other areas of human endeavour. On another tack, Marcus may be relying on the mindset he developed during flying training, and using this (his mindset) as the basis for his conclusion that 2 digits are mostly better than 3 digits. This issue of mindset often bobs up during discussions of change; people argue from the point of view of preserving their own mindset rather than being able to observe the objective data. By the way, I cannot see how, to an innumerate person, 2 digits are clearer than 3 digits. > If it is absolutely critical for the well being and proper/effective/efficient > functioning of a certain profession that digits be kept to a minimal, then why > force unnecessary accurate numbers on this community??? This paragraph contains two unstable conjectures and uses them to support each other � two drunks leaning against each other for support comes to mind. Let me separate the two ideas: > If it is absolutely critical for the well being and proper/effective/efficient > functioning of a certain profession that digits be kept to a minimal, This is simply not true. The evidence of the Australian building industries over the last 30 years blows this conjecture out of the water; there has never been any difficulty coping with 'big numbers' at any level of the industry from architects and engineers to builders' laborers. In fact, the only reference to 'big numbers' was during the first 6 months of metrication when conjecture had not yet been overcome by experience. > then why > force unnecessary accurate numbers on this community??? And the extra digits did not 'force unnecessary accurate numbers on this community'. In fact the additional numbers gave bricklayers, carpenters, glaziers, and plumbers the opportunity � but not the necessity � to increase the accuracy of all of their work. If a housing block of land was being measured it was soon realised that figures such as 23�600�mm or even 45�350�mm were appropriate, and that 23�598�mm or 45�352�mm were too precise. However for fitting a cupboard door, then 632�mm was quite appropriate. Building workers had never had this level of accuracy and precision before and they took to it quickly and easily when they realised its simplicity and its value in producing a better job. > If one did that one > would be seriously jeopardizing the very metric motto we are so fond of (a > touts les peuples a tout le temps). But 'for all people, for all times' is exactly what has been achieved by the choice of millimetres as a small unit. As I illustrated in the Australian building trades the use of millimetres was readily adopted 'for all people' from architects and engineers to builders' laborers, and I have no doubt that this will be 'for all time' as anyone who has shared the delightful experience of working solely in millimetres will never return to other more complicated measures, such as centimetres or inches. > And if, in addition to the above, there is no need or possibility of assuring > certain accuracies why go through the hassle of using them when even its use > would be scientifically questionable (or even wrong!). Lest it be thought that building workers in Australia are smarter than the average, let me assure you that this is not the case. Australian building workers have absolutely no knowledge of the niceties of scientific accuracies; as extremely practical people they just use whatever levels of accuracy and precision that suits the job in hand. If their choices of precision bear any relationship to metrological theories, this is purely coincidental. > For instance, if I > cannot reproduce my height to a millimeter accuracy why should I? I can only > attest it to the cm value. Therefore, I have no choice even but to state it > as 1.79 m. Marcus has chosen an interesting example here; height (or more technically stature) is famously difficult to measure. Our height varies from day to day, and even during the course of a day. Perhaps Terry Simpson could help us with some data on this. > And if in this case the use of decimal values is "anathema", then fine, > collapse it to 179 cm. But please let us notice that it would be > scientifically *incorrect* to state this as 1 790 mm because we simply canNOT > substantiate what my height is to that value of accuracy (it could be 1 793, > or 1 792, or ...). It is interesting to compare metric practices with pre-metric practices on the issue of height. I can't say anything about the USA, but in Australia heights were mostly estimated in 2 inch lots 5' 2" (eyes of blue), 5' 4", 5'�6". 5' 8", 5' 10", six footers, 6' 2" etc. The introduction of the metric system has not yet replaced these convenient guesstimations with their metric equivalents: 1.6�m, 1.65�m, 1.7�m, 1.75�m, 1.8�m, 1.85�m, 1.9�m, 1.95�m, 2.0�m etc. The attempt to introduce centimetre accuracy to people's heights has largely been a failure here and you often hear people referring to their own and other people's heights in feet and inches. I feel that one problem here is that centimetres are too precise for people to guess other's heights confidently. For human height (stature), I use metres as the basic unit and guess heights in decimal fractions to two places with the final figure as either a zero or a five. > Therefore, as a matter of general policy we canNOT in sane conscience condemn > those who would demonstrate a preference for the use of "non-engineering" > prefixes when the SI system is built and designed with flexibility in mind > (otherwise why would it have defined such prefixes to begin with if not to > allow their use???). Of course we can condemn them and we should do so. Such people have condemned their fellows to live through generations of bitter dispute over what are, at their very essence, simple measuring systems. These people should be further condemned because they are doing this from either ignorance (they haven't bothered to collect any data) or from conservatism of their own mindset (I was brought up using centimetres � they are good enough for me so they're good enough for you). As to whether SI should include the prefixes centi, deci, deca, and hecto, it is obvious that SI does include these and it has done so since the 1790s. Whilst these prefixes are retained (for historical reasons?) they are available for use. However, this is irrelevant to the thrust of my point of view with respect to them, which, simply put, is that the use of these prefixes will markedly slow down any planned metric transition. > So, let's please put this issue to rest for once and for all and allow > professionals to handle how they should choose to operate. Sadly, 'professionals' have a long history of building ivory towers out of conjecture and jargon, and walls made from conjecture and jargon can be particularly impenetrable to the practical people who have work to do, such as building from bricks, mortar, steel, and wood. > Let's also allow > those who have strong preferences (for one reason or another) to stick with > their way of thinking. Let me repeat: I do not take sides on this issue. My support for millimetres is not based on intellectual arguments; nor are they based on the sorts of supposition we often see from anti-metric groups. My support for millimetres is simply, and I believe soundly, based on my observations of metrication in Australia (and some observations from New Zealand and South Africa). I have been fortunate in that I have worked in a wide variety of positions in education, government and industry. By the way, if we accept your point at its face value, then many, many people in the UK and the USA would want to stay with feet and inches and they could use your argument to support their . > I don't honestly think metric users would be bothered > much by being subject to things like 1.7 m or 170 cm or 1 700 mm. We can > handle ANY of these with ease. But metric users should be bothered. If you get this decision wrong at the start of you metrication program, you could be condemning your company, and perhaps your industry, to a long slow death. Remember that if you choose centimetres for your industry, the metric transition will be painful, the metric debate will be hard fought on all sides, and the whole process will be painfully slow (33 years so far and counting for the Australian textile industry with many bankruptcies). All of this discussion and debate diverts valuable energy from the fundamental goals of your company, or your industry and it is all totally unnecessary. > Anyways... my 2-cents worth... And for two cents many industries will futilely spend many millions of dollars chasing the dream of an easy metric transition based on centimetres without knowing that the centimetre dream is simply based on conjecture, ignorance, and strongly held mindsets that some people developed as students! > Marcus No hard feelings, Marcus � I hope. We both know that robust discussion is really necessary for the metrication process to eventually succeed, 'a touts les peuples a tout le temps'. > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:04:03 > ezras wrote: >> Pat Naughtin has presented extensive arguments recommending that the "centi" >> submultiples not be used when converting a country from Imperial units to SI. >> However, the UKMA web site argues the opposite, claiming that the push to use >> only submultiples separated by a factor of 1000 (10^3) from a base unit, such >> as millimetres for lengths or distances larger than 1 mm but smaller than 1 >> m, continues to foster the false impression (at least in the UK) that the SI >> is "good" only for scientific and engineering disciplines rather than every >> domain and forces citizens to use unnecessarily large numbers with those >> subunits -- numbers that are not user friendly and that give a false >> indication of precision. Dear Ezra, Thanks for alerting me to this. The key word in this is 'false' as in 'continues to foster the false impression (at least in the UK) that the SI is "good" only for scientific and engineering disciplines' This is clearly and demonstrably wrong, so there is no need to mention it let alone pander to it; maybe if we ignore it, and it will go away. > I'm curious if anyone associated with the UKMA (Chris? Others?) would care to explain why they have taken that position despite the information provided by Pat Naughtin. (I'm still debating in my own mind which is the better way to go, so I'm very interested in the potential discussion on this topic.) >> Ezra [USMA: 27547] begins here � I have reposition it in chronological order >>> On Tuesday 2003 November 11 16:18, Joseph B. Reid wrote: >> >>> I think I can explain the UKMA website's position. Lady Attlee, the >>> daughter-in-law of the late Prime Minister Clem Attlee, won born and >>> raised in France . She had no difficulty of mentally converting >>> centimetres into inches because inches never were a part of her native >>> culture. Hence she was a strong advocate of the centimetre Much >>> merriment in Britain was caused by a British Standards Association >>> publication which featured a picture of a bathing beauty with her vital >>> dimensions in millimetres. Dear Joe, This is a very important point that directly supports my views on mindsets. People find it very difficult to alter the mindsets they receive in their childhood and early education. This morning my wife pointed out to me that in her experience: 'People who have experience in using inches will choose to use inches. 'People who have experience in using inches and centimetres will choose to use centimetres. 'People who have had experience of using inches, centimetres, and millimetres will choose to use millimetres'. In the case of Lady Anne Attlee, who had experience in using centimetres, she not only chose to use centimetres but she also wanted everyone else to use them. I have no doubt that had she had any experience with using millimetres she would choose them as her small metric unit. >> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:46:28 >> Chris KEENAN wrote: >> While Anne's views have been taken into consideration, she speaks as an >> ordinary member of the UKMA. Pat Naughtin's experiences notwithstanding, it >> has been the experience here in the UK that excessive zeal in using the >> millimetre has been a gift to our opponents. I suspect that the reason for this is that metric opponents know how to 'push the buttons' of the media, It is my experience that many reporters are functionally innumerate and to quote one of them (here in Geelong), 'I feel physically sick if I have to do a story with lots of numbers in it'. Use numbers of any kind and you will get a fear based knee-jerk emotional response from many reporters and their editors. The contrast between UKMA (and USMA) and anti-metric organisations such as BWMA is that the first two see themselves as logical, rational organisations who are concerned with promoting metrological issues to the broader community, while the BWMA sees itself as a political lobby group who will use whatever means they can to make the metric system go away. In essence the anti-metric activists play the political game better than the metricationists. >> Part of the problem is that it >> can lead to people to believe that it confers an accuracy that isn't >> warranted, so something that was a foot gets converted to 305.8 mm, when the >> original value may have been accurate to a quarter-inch. It has been my >> experience that this happens when converted to mm, but conversion to >> centimetres is usually done to the nearest cm (or 0.5 cm). Clearly, this is a metrologist's analysis of the situation. To a political activist the numbers (say '305.8') is simply placed to produce a fear response from innumerate people, who will never notice that the foot that the writer is referring to is probably 304.8�millimetres � only a numerate and metrologically able person would notice that. >> Such examples can >> be used to deliberately create an aura of complexity, and put people off >> learning. Our opponents are quite happy giving examples such as 'a 453.5924 g >> of flesh', but you never see them citing a kilogram as being 2.204623 lbs! Again, this is for political not metrological reasons. By the way, have you considered saying that a kilogram is 2 lbs. 3 ozs. and 119 55/64 gr. (avoirdupois)? >> What we are trying to do is counter the impression that centimetres (and, to >> a >> lesser extent, centilitres) are not part of SI. We're not trying to encourage >> their wider adoption in industry, simply recognising their validity. No, I am not saying, nor suggesting, that the prefix, centi, is not a valid part of SI. I am simply reporting my observation that a transition to metric measures goes much more quickly and smoothly if you don't use it. >> Two examples: back in 1995, photo processing started to show metric sizes. >> While continental practice is to give sizes such as 10 x 15 cm, here we >> frequently saw 101 x 152 mm. While the latter may be more accurate (and what >> is on packs of photographic paper) it doesn't help sell metric as being >> simpler. I'm glad that you used the photographic industry as an example here as it is instructive to consider their experiences with a transition to metric measures. I will use Kodak as an example. Firstly, let me pick a nit. I know that Kodak uses millimetres for film sizes (16�mm, 35�mm, etc) but I don't believe that Kodak uses millimetres for photographic paper. I think that your example would be expressed internally within Kodak in the form of 12.7 x 10.1 centimetres. Notice that I have also changed your numbers to suit the common Kodak size of 5 inches x 4 inches as Kodak photographic paper is almost always a derivative of the 10 inch by 8 inch format. The Kodak company began their metric transition program in about 1910, when their film division began to produce 16�millimetre B&W film; the Kodak film division expanded on this when they introduced 16�millimetre color film in 1929. Sadly, the film division appears not to have been speaking to the photographic paper division who has steadfastly continued to produce multiples and sub-multiples of their 8 inch by 10 inch formats, although they sometimes do soft conversions to centimetres. See 'Sizes available' at: http://wwwau.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4021 /e4021.jhtml#sizes If it can be said that a company has a mindset, the Kodak company clearly has its mindset in inches with a nodding acquaintanceship with millimetres in the film division and centimetres in the photographic paper division. For their inch to centimetre (no millimetres) conversion chart see: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis106/cis106.j html It does not surprise me that the metric transition at Kodak has taken 93 years � so far � I would expect that from a transition using centimetres. >> My partner recently received a plants catalogue. She said "what's 900 mm?". I >> said it's 30 cm, or about a foot. Her reply (and this is someone who was >> anti-metric before she met me!) was "why don't they SAY 30 cm?" >> >> So I think we need to strike a balance between what we say is recommended >> practice, and what is acceptable in everyday situations. That exactly makes my point. Anyone who has been involved in metric transitions knows that constantly converting between the units of one mindset and another is not the way to go. For example, the UKMA website suggests four principles for a metric conversion program. They are: 1 Think metric! (don't convert) 2 Phase out supplementary indications 3 Avoid (or minimise) transitional periods 4 Choose user-friendly metric units I agree with all of these, but I interpret the final one differently to the UKMA analysis; I have observed that, in practice, millimetres are more 'user-friendly metric units' than centimetres. I have never been able to find any evidence that using centimetres leads to a simple, successful, and rapid transition to metric. Following Chris's leadership, I asked my wife about her own personal metric transition. Wendy is a highly gifted and successful musician, a professional concert pianist who was also an orchestral conductor and chorus master (she refused to be "chorus mistress'), and who now writes cook books. Until about five years ago, my wife was robustly committed to Imperial measurement. She had tried to convert to metric but the centimetres had defeated her. When she read '30 centimetres was about a foot' she said 'but that's exactly what I did and as a result I actually always thought in Imperial'. and, like many others she just translated back to Imperial. Naturally, I was somewhat frustrated by this. However, one day she overheard me talking to a carpenter about 'Rules of thumb' where we mentioned things like the width of our fingernails was 10�millimetres and how 'handy' that was. Wendy went inside and measured the width of her little finger as 10�millimetres. In a few seconds she not only discovered the ease of using millimetres and metres � she also had a mental image of size. Again I quote, 'But in one morning I quickly and easily learnt metres and millimetres and I have never again used feet and inches'. By the way, she always refers to people's height in metres � she thinks people who use millimetres for height are doing so to try to make a political point against the metric system. She says, "No-one in their right mind would try to use millimetres for their height". She also says, 'never compare', switch to metric and use only metric. I helped by replacing her kitchen scales with metric only ones. Since my wife measured the width of her little finger (10 mm), and her hand across the knuckle as 80�mm (etc etc) she said, 'I was able to eliminate feet and inches from my mind as of that moment. When the weather report says that we had 20 mm of rain I just look at my little finger and mentally double its width. Without the aid of knowing my own measurements in millimetres, I would have constantly thought of 30 cm as 'about a foot' and consequently would never have converted'. When you say 'or about a foot', you are giving your partner a mental 'look' at the probable size and you are reinforcing the old foot and inch measures in her mind. >> I'll take this opportunity to announce the launch of the new UKMA Web site. >> It >> can be reached though the URL below or via www.ukma.org.uk. >> >> -- >> Chris KEENAN >> UK Metric Assoc: www.metric.org.uk on 13/11/03 4:36 AM, Ma Be at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I firmly believe Chris is dead on the money here. The example he shares with > us is VERY indicative of the general population's behavior when faced with > measured values out there. I don't agree. Chris's partner is simply going through the slow transition to metric measures via the centimetre route. This often involves keeping two mindsets active at the same time � inches and centimetres � and constantly converting between the two. > Indeed, why not 30 cm after all??? In addition we MUST take into account that > the overwhelming majority of people out there IS mathematically-challenged. > If we can make *their* lives easier why not? Why should we be so selfish as > to insist on pushing more numbers down their throat than what is really > necessary? Could you please explain to me how 23 is different to 230 to an innumerate person? > Perhaps this is one strong reason why people in North America is STILL tied to > the inch crap. This size is big enough that it would render a reasonable > number for measured values (with 2 digits, tops). And if something is bigger > than that, then there is the hideous foot (again, which would render values > not to exceed 2 digits, *again*!!!). I think that the issue of two versus three digits is a red herring. It's quite irrelevant, and we all have adequate evidence that this is so. Do people in the USA baulk at buying a 370�mL can of Coke because they can't understand the three digits? Do people refuse to eat their All-Bran breakfast cereal because they can't understand the three digits in 'Sodium 171 mg'. Do cooks find it too difficult to add 500 grams of an ingredient? > Shouldn't we learn something from this, folks? (Really!...) > > Therefore, what alternative could we offer that would in essence provide the > population with similar advantages? Simple, like it or not, the centimeter > (yes, indeed!)! And if something is bigger than 100, collapse it straight to > the meter. Don't like decimal points though, fine, do like many do in metric > countries (I know, I know, this is anathema even to me, but what the heck, if > it works, why bother about such colloquialisms?...), state things "the ifp > way", e.g. 1m58cm. Whoa there Marcus, if you keep this up I might be forced to disagree with you. I believe that there is ample evidence that metrication using millimetres is simpler than metrication using centimetres, and you have yet to provide any evidence or observations to support a contrary view. > If we are to win the hearts and minds of ordinary simple humble people we HAVE > TO give them a workable alternative, folks. I'm confused here, 'a workable alternative' to what? There is clear and ample evidence that the use of millimetres is 'a workable alternative' to using centimetres � is this what you mean? > It's as simple as that. We > certainly do NOT help our cause by forcing these individuals to handle 3, 4 or > so many digits. > Cheers, > > Marcus Let me restate a few of my points of view: People do not have difficulty using millimetres People do have difficulty using centimetres People do not have difficulty with 3 or 4 digit numbers People have preferred measurement mindsets (in inches, centimetres, or millimetres) and, without practical applications, these can be difficult to change. People don't think much about measurement � they take it as a 'given'. Cheers, Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online newsletter, 'Metrication matters'. You can subscribe by sending an email containing the words subscribe Metrication matters to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
