I agree partially with what you are saying. But my original statement was not meant to bias the understanding of 1.7 ounces vs. 50 mL based on non-rounded FFU vs. rounded metric. My whole point was that the perfume bottle was labelled this way and that any FFU user looking at the label would comprehend 50 mL better then 1.7 ounces.
FFU is very restrictive to those who claim to possess an understanding of it. FFU is very understandable provided one sticks to a limited number series. If you venture outside the traditional number series, the understanding becomes more difficult. A metric user would comprehend 59 mL much better then an FFU-ist would comprehend 1.7 ounces. FFU-ists understanding of number series is restricted to factors of 1/2^n, where n is a integer between zero and four. One can state with utmost accuracy that any metric size, even if not rounded to a number ending in 5 or 0 would have an advantage even over the corresponding rounded FFU value. The use of whole numbers in millilitres helps create the advantage that in FFU would be in parts of a whole. The large size of the ounce (almost 30 mL) makes it even more difficult to visualise subparts accurately. The whole structure of FFU is at a disadvantage compared to metric which can not really be classified as unfair. It isn't the fault of the metric system that FFU is klutzy and cumbersome and has an inherent disadvantage. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Hooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 2004-03-30 21:31 Subject: [USMA:29380] Re: Ounces versus ml > J Ward wrote: > > I would like to test ~50 randomly-selected Americans by asking them to > > put 1.7 > > ounces of water in a glass, then measure how close they got. Then > > test the > > same number Europeans who grew up with the metric system, this time > > asking > > for 50 ml. > > But you are stacking the deck (biasing the test) in favor of metric by > using a rather common, rounded metric size (50 mL) vs. an awkward, > non-rounded Olde English size (1.7 fl. oz.). Metric DOESN'T NEED to > have an unfair advantage! If we give metric that kind of advantage and > then metric wins people will disregard the results by correctly stating > that metric had an unfair advantage. > > A better test would be to use 2 fl. oz. for the Olde English quantity > and the equivalent 59 mL for the metric value. That gives the Olde > English the advantage of having the bias in its favor and yet I'd be > willing to bet the metric users could still do better. > > Then there is the possibility of doing a double test, using both sets > of values above. Have the Olde English user try to estimate (a) 1.7 fl. > oz. and (b) 2.0 fl. oz., while having the metric user estimate 50 mL > and 59 mL. > > Another possibility (using just a single test) is to make both samples > simple numbers. There is really no reason why they have to be equal, > although it may be useful if they are similar. So, use 2 fl. oz. and 50 > mL. > > To prove the worth of metric vs. English, insist upon tests that are > neutral or balanced regarding what is to be tested. Devising good, > scientific experiments requires a lot of careful thought. > > (PS You also have overlooked the not-so-insignificant problem of the > accuracy with which the MEASUREMENTS have to be made to check the > subjects' estimated amounts. Who would measure the amounts to check > them, an Olde English user or a metric user?) > > Regards, > Bill Hooper > Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA > ======================== > SIMPLIFICATION begins with SI > ======================== > >
