Both sides are right. People who are fluent in metric often need to convert
and then a converter comes handy.
The question of conversion for those learning metric was already alive in
the beginning of the 19th century, when The Netherlands were metric. There
was a struggle between two 'schools' of thought.
"What is necessary during metrication and will be needed for ever?" was a
question in a school book.The answer was given: "Conversion from new to old
and back will always be in need". One of the many school books that gave
priority to the 'need' to convert from old to metric and back. Pupils were
tormented with endless conversions; as a result they may have blamed the
metric system for that. Outside the schools, the environment was changing
only very slowly, meaning that during the first decades of metrication, they
used the units of their elders - non metric.
I have even seen a booklet for teachers with the
misleading title "A short outline of the decimal system of weights and
measures". Those who opened it found out that it was about conversion only.
The booklet was targeted at metric-fluent people, who should be tought about
the 'close relationships between the old and the new system'.
Conversion threatened to become a new 'skill' in arithmetic.
Here is an example, but I won't work it out: Convert 7 feet 11 inches 7-3/8
line Rhineland measure to metric.
The teaching method required the decimalization of the old units first and
then the conversion. After some very nasty calculations the outcome was 2.44
m. As awful as making up invoices with ton.cwt.qr.lb/l.s.d.
Those who were in charge of metrication detested this 'conversion' business.
They attacked it in magazines for teachers, they wrote school books. which
were 'metric system first' and only at the end of the course they had a
little time for the conversion of a few common units, to prevent being
cheated. In the course of time, the conversion 'school' slowly lost ground
and the metric system proper took its place.
Han
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Elwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, 2005, October 22 17:31
Subject: [USMA:34969] Re: Metric converter web site?
At 21 October 2005, 10:30 PM, Pat Naughtin wrote:
To provide a link to a metric conversion page is not, in my view, a good
idea.
The process of metrication is not encouraged by metric conversions; or to
be more blunt, metric conversions are a direct impediment to metrication
progress.
I agree with your position that doing conversions impedes the process of
LEARNING metrication.
However, once someone knows metric, they may still have to do a variety of
conversions in their work. This is particularly true of engineers, who are
my company's main audience. I certainly know metric, but regularly refer
to my company's rulers or to ASTM/IEEE 10 2002 for conversion factors.
<snip>
