[USMA:32747] RE: The MIT article is flawed!

[Han Maenen]

I stand by what I wrote. This article is in a very reasonable tone, but the gist of it is anti-metric. He makes claims which I reject utterly. If I read through the lines, the article tells me that the metric system forces its users into a rigid decimal straight jacket. A flaw of the metric system is that it does not allow division by three. The litre is too large to quench human thirst. The author also makes a big point of the resistance to the metric system in the past and in the present. Napoleon was just as reasonable. In his notorious decree of 1812 February 12, that brought the metric system to the brink of the abyss, he stated that previous laws on the metric system would not be changed but that 'instruments of measurement' would be adopted for use in daily life, which were 'suited to the needs of the people'. However, these were no instruments at all, these were veritable non-decimal measuring units in a system called Le Systeme Usuel, translated as The Customary System. It was abolished from 1840 January 1 by a law enacted in 1837. I only agree with the general statement that the metric system was created by humans and therefore it is not a perfect system of units. This article would have been acceptable to me if the author had not used BWMA and Inch Perfect arguments to make his point. He could have explained the problems with the definition of the litre in the past instead.   Han   ----- Original Message ----- From: Phil Chernack To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 8:37 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   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Han Maenen Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:15 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:32732] The MIT article is flawed!   I had trouble loading this article on my computer. Sometimes my browser does not load pages for some reason I can not yet fathom (!) This article is the same stuff that we have heard from Napoleon in the early 19th century up to the BWMA and Inch Perfect today. This eternal obsession with fractions and division by three. Once again the metric system is depicted as rigid and inflexible. It is my conviction that what was convenient under the old measuring units can be used in the metric system. A meter, a kilogram and a liter can be divided by 2 and 4. The use of 25 and 300 mm modules is perfectly possible. Even the US fl.oz. finds life after death in a way. What was a fluid ounce becomes 30 mL. A Dutch pound equals 5 ounces of 100 g each, etc., etc. In many cases the BTU can be regarded equal to the kilojoule. This flexibility was understood from the beginning, except by Napoleon and other enemies of the metric system. Weights and measures as objects were often structured as follows: 2, 1, 0,5 (m, L, kg), and then also the decimal series were used. There is nothing wrong here. The one thing that is a definite no-no is giving unit names to 25 and 300 mm modules, or 2 and 0.5 m, kg, L. This was also argued in the beginning of the 19th century. As for division by 3: Many USA and UK units cannot be divided by three either. In many cases when it is possible it is not clearly visible and has to be thought out, like the 231 cubic inches of the US gallon. Can 231 be divided by 3? Yes, it is 77, but you don't see it at once. 'Liters exceed human thirst.' That is BWMA and Inch Perfect-prattle. I still can quench my thirst with a half liter. And if the author wants to prove his case against the metric system by pointing to the resistance it has met and still meets, I can name many innovations which have encountered fierce resistance and even teetered on the brink because of that resistance, just as the metric system was brought to the brink of the abyss under Napoleon. Operating under anesthetics, vaccination against smallpox and other diseases, antisepsis brought to us by Semmelweiss and Lister. Judging from the resistance these innovations encountered, there must be some advantage in operating without anesthetics, contracting full blown deadly infectious diseases, or medical personnel not washing their hands before an operation or other treatment. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweiss - the Viennese doctor who combated puerperal fever in the 19th century by insisting that medical personnel wash their hands in a disinfectant before treating or examing women in labour- was driven insane by the opponents of cleanliness and he died in an asylum in Vienna.   The BWMA and Inch Perfect c.s. will be very pleased with this article.   Han     The Trouble with the Meter � MIT �   The Trouble with the Meter By Ed Tenner May 2005 1 of 1 Amid the ideological and religious upheavals of the last 200 years, the metric system has spread around the world as an exemplar of science and rationality. But in both its champions and detractors, it has evoked as much passion as reason...............