[USMA:32737] RE: The MIT article is flawed!

[Philip S Hall]

The basis of those alleged imperfections was unfair and a misiguided 
criticsm of the metric system. It's one thing to say that human technology 
will have limitations and to suggest that the original definition of the 
meter was flawed (though the level of accuracy achieved at the time was 
pretty good for its day) and not the best choice as a way of measuring it, 
but it is quite something else to criticise it for not having thirds or 
lacking an order of magnitude unit when it's actually there, or saying that 
a litre is too big when it can easily be subdivided etc.

Whatever mistakes may have been made or limitations existed in the past the 
present day metric system has been refined to overcome them and is 
continually improving. Frankly it's the best we have. The same cannot be 
said of the alternatives and, to answer an earlier suggestion of my not 
being even handed, the history of non-metric units does genuinely hamper 
them and makes them cumbersome to use.

Phil Hall
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Phil Chernack
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 7:37 PM
Subject: [USMA:32734] RE: The MIT article is flawed!

I'm very confused.  Nowhere in the article did I see anything making 
arguments against the metric system.  What I did read was a statement of 
facts concerning its development and adoption throughout the world.  Why do 
others in this group seem to be getting that this article is in opposition 
to the metric system.  If anything, it goes on to state that there are 
advantages to it.  The one point that was made is that NO measurement system 
is perfect.  As measurement systems are created by humans, I think we can 
all agree to that.

Phil